The following amendment has been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Lesley Griffiths.

The next item is the Welsh Conservatives debate—motion under Standing Order 17.2 to give instructions to a relevant committee in relation to the all-Wales NVZ.

And before I call James Evans, I think this is the first full debate we've had in the sixth Senedd, so just a reminder of the timings, please—that you have 15 minutes to open and close, and each other speaker has five minutes, and the Minister has eight minutes. Let's keep to the times, because everyone has an opportunity to speak then.

I call on James Evans to move the motion.

Motion NDM7703 Darren Millar, Siân Gwenllian

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Notes the adverse impact of the all-Wales nitrate vulnerable zone (NVZ) on Welsh agriculture.

2. In accordance with Standing Order 17.2, calls on the relevant Senedd committee to urgently review The Water Resources (Control of Agricultural Pollution) (Wales) Regulations 2021 and present its recommendations to the Senedd.

Motion moved.

Diolch—thank you. And I formally move the motion in the name of Darren Millar.

Across the farming communities in Wales, from the upland areas to the coastal regions and to my own area in the heart of Wales in Brecon and Radnorshire, our agricultural communities and our farmers work tirelessly to feed the nation and ensure the environment is protected and our landscapes managed in a sustainable way. To quote the National Farmers Union, farmers are all too often seen as the problem, when in reality they are the solution to our environmental challenges. The rural landscape is not just for farmers but for us all, for future generations, to encourage diversity, thriving ecosystems and wildlife. It is also vital for our economy to attract tourists, who bring much needed-revenue to local businesses and to our communities.

Our farmers play a huge role, producing food to feed the nation. Farmers are passionate about their land, committed to working towards the best practices, producing top-quality products with the highest standards of animal welfare and environmental protections. However, Welsh Government's agricultural policies over the years have shown contempt for farmers and our rural communities, promising one thing and then delivering another. The recent u-turn to introduce the all-Wales nitrate vulnerable zone is an example of such. The data from elsewhere in the world shows this policy to be ineffective and is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Some areas of Wales have recorded no agricultural pollution incidents in 10 years, yet all farmers are being penalised. 

Would he give way on that point?

There are no interventions at this point in time because we're hybrid—[Inaudible.]

Whilst one pollution incident is one too many, a blanket policy is hurting the industry at a time when they need support. The financial package of support provided from the Welsh Government is woefully inadequate, putting large cost burdens onto our farmers in order for them to adapt to these changes. Despite assurances—. On no less than between seven and 10 occasions, the Minister assured farmers this blanket approach would not be imposed during the pandemic. And in a blink of an eye, with no consultation with the industry, the Minister decided to plough ahead and break promises again.

All too often, agriculture gets blamed for increased nitrates in our rivers, and yet a Panorama investigation alleged that Welsh Water had been illegally dumping sewage into the River Usk in my constituency. This seems to get ignored. Recent data from Welsh Water itself also suggests that in 2020 raw sewage was dumped into Welsh rivers more than 100,000 times, for almost 900,000 hours, across more than 2,000 water treatment works and sewage outflows. Do we see any real action from Welsh Government over this? No, we don't. Furthermore, Welsh Government's own data suggests that between January and November 2020 the water industry accounted for the most pollution incidents relating to surface water in Wales, with 180 recorded during this period. But who still gets the blame for polluting our rivers? You've got it—it's farmers.

This Government claims climate change is a huge issue, and I don't disagree. Who would? But I'm afraid your track record on actually tackling climate change is questionable at best. You purchased an airport, at huge cost to the taxpayer, endorsing putting toxic fumes into the atmosphere, and then you went and spent millions of taxpayer money on a road to nowhere and refused to build the M4 relief road, ensuring that, every day, thousands of cars queue up in traffic jams along the M4, pumping poisonous toxins and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Yet again, you say one thing and then you do another. 

Throughout the pandemic our farmers have fed the nation, ensuring essential supplies are available. And, rightfully so, we clapped our NHS and our carers. And instead of going out and clapping for our farmers, the Welsh Government seemed to think a slap in the face was far more appropriate. Our farmers deserve better than this from the Welsh Government, and from a Minister who, one time, I trusted to support the industry.

An all-Wales NVZ legislation is unacceptable. It has been described as a lazy cut and paste from a 30-year-old EU directive that places more pressure on already hard-pressed farmers who are dealing with COVID-19. It is harming agricultural businesses, livelihoods, and putting a huge mental strain on farmers yet again, and for very questionable benefits. Natural Resources Wales, Welsh Government's own regulator, warned you, and it's proposed in the new water rules, and I quote, that it will have a 'perverse outcome' of making water quality worse, and that they may not have sufficient resources to effectively deliver the regulatory inspection regimes associated with the regulations.

Despite the warnings, and the huge strain on people's mental health and businesses and their well-being, you pushed ahead with the NVZ regardless. We've heard the scathing reviews from all the farming unions in Wales, and I ask the Welsh Government: why do you not trust the vast majority of farmers who are responsible and do not pollute? What we need is a policy that is more flexible, evidence based and that has the support of the industry to address pollution. At a time when the Welsh Government should be working in partnership with our farmers, they slam the door shut on collaboration and instead press ahead with imposing costly plans that are woefully underfunded and could drive a number of farmers out of the industry.

We on the Conservative benches urge the Government and other Members in this Chamber and online to support our motion to have a review of this draconian legislation. Let's listen to the experts and the industry, and let the relevant committee do its work to ensure the best possible legislation is put through this Parliament. So, let's all move forward together and ensure our beautiful country not only maintains but improves our high food and environmental standards, working with our farmers and not against them. Diolch.   

Before we move on to the next speaker, can I—? Huw Irranca-Davies reminded me that, in fact, in debates, interventions, at the moment, of course, as we normally would have intervened, are not the process, because there are so many Members who can't do so in the hybrid system. But Members are able to contact the desk here to inform us of their wish to make an intervention and we can call them at the end, before the final speaker. Just to put that clear. I appreciate the Member's desire to intervene—I've been there many times. [Interruption.] Okay.  

I have selected the amendment to the motion. I call on the Minister for Rural Affairs and North Wales and the Trefnydd to move formally the amendment tabled in her name. 

Amendment 1—Lesley Griffiths

Delete point 1 and replace with:

Notes the critical importance of reducing agricultural emissions in order to:

a) strengthen the reputation of Welsh farming;

b) protect people and nature in Wales from air pollution;

c) safeguard Wales’ rivers and seas for future generations;

d) deliver Wales’ net zero ambition.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally. 

Given that the NVZ regulations were rushed through the Senedd shortly before the last election, contrary to the pledge made by the Minister—and we've heard reference to this; she said that she wouldn't introduce regulations during the pandemic—I'm very grateful for this opportunity to recommence this important debate early in this new Senedd term. When I was campaigning in rural areas, particularly across Mid and West Wales, one of the issues that was raised most often, particularly by farmers, was this particular issue, because they were concerned about the impact of these regulations on them, as farmers, on the future of family farms, and, as a result, they were concerned about the very future of rural Wales. 

Now, we've heard time and time again from the agricultural unions and others over the past months why these regulations, as they are currently drafted, are not acceptable. For example, the regulations contravene specialist recommendations made by NRW, as the intention is to implement them on an all-Wales basis, rather than to focus on the 8 per cent of areas that face the highest risks. Secondly, the method of calendar farming is likely to create unintended consequences, which will be damaging. You can imagine farmers pouring tonnes of this slurry just before the closing date and immediately after the window opens. And, thirdly, with the weather of Wales, farming by calendar doesn't make any sense. Let me give you an example. I live a field's width from the River Towy and some three weeks ago, where it was possible for farmers, according to the Welsh Government calendar, to spread slurry, the fields were flooded. So, operating by calendar simply doesn't work, given our climate here in Wales. And, finally, there is a lack of financial support provided by Government to assist farmers to cope with these new regulations. The £11 million provided is totally inadequate, and what will happen as a result is that many family farms will decide to leave the industry, and the impact of that on rural Wales will be utterly disastrous. 

And we heard, during the debate prior to the election, the Minister arguing that she needed to highlight the importance of aligning Wales with other nations within the UK, but the truth of the matter is that not one other UK nation has decided to introduce regulations over 100 per cent of its territory. In England, they are operating at a level of around 55 per cent. But ironically now, England intends to move away from that plan. So, at the very time when other nations are changing direction, the Welsh Government is moving full pelt in the other direction.

Minister, we shouldn't look back at ideas that were being discussed about 30 years ago for a solution to water pollution. We have to look to the future by embracing technology to make far more accurate choices around land management. As you know, there are examples of innovative projects being carried out as we speak, where farmers and researchers are working together to devise a far more sophisticated way of putting nutrient management plans in place. 

You will know that Gelli Aur college farm has recently completed a very successful pilot project, called, Taclo'r Tywi—tackling the Tywi—in a part of Wales that has notoriously been a black spot for river pollution, using weather stations on farms to measure soil temperature, leaf moisture, wind direction and rainfall. Now, this provides real-time data on a phone app within seconds, using a red, amber, green system that will allow farmers to make on-field decisions around slurry spreading, pesticide spraying or harvesting. This is far more scientific than farming by calendar, which is both impractical and outdated.

Minister, your Government has generally been praised by the people of Wales for the way in which you've tackled this pandemic because you followed the science as the basis for your decisions. So, I urge you to turn to the science and the technology currently available in order to secure that crucial balance between sustainable farming and safeguarding the environment. As we support this motion, it's important to note that we're not calling for no action. Every one of us wants to see the environment protected—me particularly, who has fished on the river Tywi for years—

Will you come to your conclusion now, please?

—I am coming to an end, Deputy Presiding Officer—and I know what an impact pollution can have on water quality. No, this is a demand for proportionate action from Government that is targeted with adequate financial support.

So, to conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, I urge the Government to look again at the recommendations made by Natural Resources Wales to increase the area of the NVZ from 2 per cent to 8 per cent. And this is the very final paragraph: in working together to reach consensus, we can find a solution that will safeguard our environment and ensure a more secure future for our family farms, which are the backbone of the rural economy, for the years to come. Thank you very much.

Can I remind Members, as I said, five minutes? Because all you're doing is taking time off somebody else—it could be somebody from your own party, who may not be able to speak as a consequence of time going on. So, let's try and keep to time if we can, please.

I thank the Welsh Conservatives for tabling this motion. It affords an early opportunity for this Senedd to debate a critical topic, namely the health and future of our country's waterways. The motion asks us to note the adverse impact of a Government policy on Welsh agriculture. I do think somehow that that's pretty rich coming from a party that would sell Welsh farmers down the river for a free trade deal with Australia, and a party that's imposed £137 million UK budget cut on Welsh rural communities.

But I'll put that hypocrisy aside, because the salient point to argue today is that the all-Wales nitrate vulnerable zone will have no such adverse impact, and the standards in the regulations are in no way, in my opinion, excessive. Rather, they establish baseline standards for production in Wales that are comparable to the rest of the UK and also Europe. And that alignment will be critical to future trade, especially if Wales is to market brand-Wales produce based on sustainability.

We've heard again today why the regulations are urgently needed. Having represented Mid and West Wales since 2007, I have lost track of the number of incidents of serious river pollution from agriculture in that time. But I was still shocked to read the figures in black and white: nearly 3,000 substantiated agriculture-related pollution incidents in Wales since 2001; an average of 148 a year for the last 20 years; and more than three a week in the last three years alone. That is definitely not acceptable, that is definitely not sustainable, but it is entirely preventable, and it is our moral duty here to do something about that.

The evidence also clearly shows that this is a Wales-wide problem and it requires a bold, clear, national solution. 'The State of Natural Resources Report' for 2020 states that two thirds of our river water bodies failed to achieve good ecological status under the water framework directive classification. Evidence published by NRW in January on our nine river special areas of conservation identifies agriculture as a major contributor to pollutant levels in these nationally important waters that exceed legal limits. More than 60 per cent of protected rivers in Wales exceed phosphate pollution limits, so I think it's a bit disingenuous for Plaid Cymru Members to suggest that we can achieve the crucial environmental benefits they say they want to see just by tinkering around the fringes of this with voluntary and local regulations.

The truth of the matter is that unless we take urgent action to control pollution at source, it'll be too late to recover our river ecosystems. The all-Wales nitrate vulnerable zone regulation is a wholly proportionate tool that will help tackle the nature and climate emergency and thereby support sustainable farming both now and in the future.

Thank you, James Evans, Member of this Senedd, for leading on such an important debate and for securing cross-party support in opposition to the devastating Welsh Labour and Lib Dem NVZ regulations. I speak again to place on record my absolute opposition, and the adverse impact that the all-Wales nitrate vulnerable zone will have on Welsh agriculture. I also wish to call on the new Senedd committee responsible for agriculture and for water to urgently review these regulations.

As I have stated many times before, the regulatory impact assessment estimates that the upfront capital cost of this scheme could run to £360 million. That is £347 million more than the assistance being offered by the Welsh Government and is £99 million more than the latest total income from farming in Wales. Already, we are aware of some tenant farmers who are in crisis now with their landlords, and we know of banks unwilling to foot the bill, and the UK farming unions are now warning that the dairy industry is facing an extremely challenging year on the back of spiralling production costs and variable milk prices.

So, you will be unsurprised to learn that the extra costs of meeting water regulations are indeed making the situation much worse. In fact, a leading mental health farming charity warned that these regulations were likely to cause immense stress for farmers. Your own explanatory memorandum stated, and I quote:

'The potential negative impact of additional regulatory requirements on mental well-being, particularly where other economic or health challenges already exist, is also recognised.'

So, you actually do recognise the fact that this is going to cause mental ill health, and we've just had questions on mental health. It just doesn't make sense. Already I know of numerous farming families in Wales who invest every single penny back into their business, and now some of those are even contemplating closure. They are truly desperate.

This would also be devastating for our Welsh language. Forty-three per cent of agricultural workers speak Welsh, compared to 19 per cent of the general population. The 'Iaith y Pridd' report recommended that the Welsh Government operate by ensuring that policies support industries on our family farms. Questions do still have to be raised as to whether the regulations are in line with section 4 of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and in particular the goal to have a Wales of vibrant culture and thriving Welsh language.

We must also ask you, Minister: why are you not even acting in the best interests of our environment? Many of our suckler cow herds, which make a vital contribution to biodiversity by managing some of our most important habitats, are now set to be lost, and NRW has warned that the new rules will have the perverse outcome of making water quality worse, thereby dispelling a lot of the points that Joyce Watson made. The NVZ is being introduced at a time when even NRW's executive director for evidence, policy and permitting has spoken of a steady decline in pollution incidents in the last two years. That is a clear downward trend that has been observed over the last three years, and in fact, huge areas of Wales have seen zero incidents in the last decade.

As I have said before, the voluntary approach should and must have been given a real chance. The 'blue flag' farming approach was not backed by Welsh Government when farmers actually applied for funding through the rural development programme sustainable management scheme. Despite project results and water standards being shared in letters with the Minister and the First Minister in March 2020, including recommendations for next steps, and a response being issued by officials stating that detailed consideration would be given to the water standard, NFU Cymru have sadly not received any reply. And prior to supporting the regulations, the Minister had not responded to the progress report and the 45 separate recommendations sent by the Wales land management forum sub-group on agricultural pollution in April 2018.

It just does appear to me, and obviously some of our new Members, that Welsh Government is actually dismissing agricultural experts and is placing the future of the environment, the Welsh language, mental health and actual farming at risk in Wales. Plaid Cymru and Welsh Conservatives are putting our political differences aside to do the right thing and to back this motion. I ask: will Welsh Labour and the new Welsh Liberal Democrat elected Member do the same, or are you going to betray rural Wales once again? Thank you. Diolch.

Jane Dodds.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you for the opportunity to make this speech.

Everyone wants an affordable, proportionate and environmentally sustainable and targeted approach to water pollution. Farmers particularly want this, but this legislation does not do that. It is not targeted, as the majority of farms across Wales have not recorded agricultural pollution. According to some experts, this is not suitable for 90 per cent of Welsh farming land. It is not proportionate and affordable, because farmers, again, cannot afford another demand for more expense to build storage, putting them in debt, as well as the extra bureaucratic pressures. Finally, this is not the right time to do this. We are hopefully emerging from COVID and farmers are now faced with a UK Conservative Government that has just sold them down the river on a trade deal with Australia. May I add that I applaud the First Minister for speaking against this? I hope the Welsh Conservatives listening this afternoon will use their voices to persuade their colleagues in Westminster to support British farmers, not let them down.

I have heard many farmers say that their cattle will have to go if these regulations are fully implemented. The consequences for biodiversity in Wales will be catastrophic if this happens. Cattle are much better than sheep for encouraging wildlife on grassland. The longer the grass cattle can cope with, the better; sheep can't. And it allows butterflies to complete their life-cycle and flowers to set seed. For wildlife, late-cut hay or haylage is ideal. Curlews want long grass, not land heavily grazed by sheep.

There is undoubtedly irresponsible spreading of slurry and poultry manure near watercourses, causing river pollution incidents. The gradual leaching of nitrate and phosphate into groundwater is a long-term problem, but there are other solutions. One is, for instance, to give Natural Resources Wales more money and powers to actually police pollution incidents and prosecute offenders. And by all means, there should be discussions with the bigger dairy farms about slurry-spreading best practice, and help financially with any improvements that don't put them further into debt.

To use a phrase that's been used this afternoon, this legislation is about using a hammer to crack a nut, and it's not something I can support. A sign of good government is to reflect, review and rethink. Look at the evidence again and let's have the targeted, effective and proportionate approach we all want to water pollution. I hope this Government will take this opportunity to do just that. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Can I thank my colleague James for presenting the motion as he did and thank my colleagues across the Chamber for the support today? As others have mentioned, the NVZ blanket approach announced by the Welsh Government at the end of January 2021 has been met with disbelief and anger. To consider it to be an effective regulatory system that delivers for our environment and the Welsh economy is sadly misguided and an out-of-touch position for the Government to take. It's clear that the farming unions and, indeed, thousands of farmers across Wales view this approach in the same way. Their view and, indeed, my own is that the claimed benefits to water quality from this approach will be relatively insignificant and certainly dwarfed by the negative economic impacts that will result. 

Each day, we are hearing of farming businesses considering calling it a day due to the additional investments needed to comply and the additional burden of heavy-handed regulations that are to be imposed. These things are just seen as a step too far and, in the majority of business minds, totally unnecessary. And that's not just rhetoric; that is fact. I talk to farmers regularly and this is a real consideration. Now is the time where the Welsh Government should, as a priority, be looking to ensure food security and not hitting farming businesses with this big metaphorical stick. We mustn't forget that farmers are the custodians of our wonderful countryside, and the mainstay of our local economy. They make Wales what it is. The Government should work with them and not against them.

Putting into law one of the most ineffective pieces of EU legislation was a massive mistake. We know that in 2018, the expert group chaired by NRW put forward 45 recommendations built on strong advice and guidance, focusing on voluntary approaches, investment, support and smart regulation, all aimed at improving water quality. But this was dismissed by the Welsh Government, even though supported by NRW, the Government's own regulator. No-one disagrees with the need for regulation, but it has to be proportionate and evidence based. The industry recognises the need to address issues when identified and will act voluntarily to deal with these things, but the Wales-wide NVZ approach is not the way forward as the wider economic and food-related consequences have not been considered properly. 

Members, this new Senedd has a real opportunity ahead of it to rethink, to take stock. It doesn't have to carry on what happened before; this is a new Senedd with new people, new thoughts and new aspirations. I, too, support the motion to call on a relevant committee to urgently review this situation. I know there would be tremendous support from the industry, and other political parties, as we've seen here today, to find a better and more productive way forward that focuses on preserving family businesses whilst addressing water quality and striving for a sustainable rural economy, cemented in a desire to maintain high-quality food and water security. I urge you all to support this motion. Diolch yn fawr.

I'm very pleased that Plaid Cymru co-submitted this debate this afternoon and that this is a joint motion from the opposition parties, which does show how strongly feelings run on this issue. But from my perspective, of course, this is a motion laid in a positive sense and it begins a process of compromise. That's what the motion does. The Welsh Government, if I may say so, has responded constructively with their amendment, and I am surprised at the aggressive contributions we've heard so far. References to Cardiff Airport and trade deals with Australia miss the point. We don't need to pick a fight today; we need to start the process of finding a better solution to the problems of the NVZs.

Prior to the election, when myself and Plaid Cymru presented the motion to annul the new regulations, I said that I and my party would be willing to work with Government to look at alternative solutions to the problem of river pollution, if the Government were willing to step back. Now, the Government rejected that option at that time, and although it does appear that the Government is willing to refer this issue to the relevant committee of the Senedd, everyone needs to understand that supporting this motion or the amendment today wouldn't prevent the regulations from being implemented. We would all welcome the opportunity for a cross-party committee to evaluate the regulations in a way that hasn't happened so far, and to bring regulations forward so that the Government can consider those, but, of course, there would be no requirement on the Government to act on those recommendations. But as the Government amendment does allow referring this issue to a committee, I do assume from that that the Government would be open to changing the regulations or even to scrap them, if the case becomes clear in the work of the committee.

So, I want to hear three things from the Minister in her response to the debate this afternoon. I want the Minister to confirm that she and her officials would initially look seriously at any recommendations made by a committee; secondly, that she commits to do everything that she can to amend the regulations in light of those recommendations; and third, that she confirms that annulling the regulations is a possible option, following the work of the committee. Clearly, a strong case would need to be made for that, and I would assume that we would need to identify an alternative approach to tackling water pollution, but I want to hear from the Minister this afternoon that the option of scrapping these regulations is on the table, because that's the only thing that can prove to me that the Government is truly willing to consider this issue and that it is worth referring it to a committee of the Senedd. 

You'll all recall that Plaid Cymru never argued for not taking action to protect water quality, and we would have supported the Government regulations had we believed that they would have worked. But there are so many weaknesses and unanswered questions that we now need to take a step back. You only need to look, as we've heard from others, at the results of the NVZ approach across Britain and other areas to see that it's not a silver bullet that will resolve all problems overnight. We also know, of course, that there will be negative environmental impacts by losing much of the cattle grazing, and we will probably see more sheep introduced to our uplands, which will lead to further environmental decline. Dairy processors in Wales have been in touch with me to express their concerns about the viability of the sector. One has suggested that they have an analysis demonstrating that up to a third of all dairy farms will cease production, and one company is already planning to move its operations elsewhere because they anticipate the detrimental impact that these regulations will have on the viability of the dairy sector.

The capital cost is something we've already heard about: up to £360 million, and that is more than the total income of agriculture in Wales in a year. That's how disproportionate these requirements are. And the Government, in introducing these regulations, has placed a bill of tens of millions of pounds on our local authorities, which will have to invest around £36 million on the 1,000 council-held holdings we have in Wales.

So, yes, introduce regulations, by all means, but target them where Natural Resources Wales says they are needed, and build on the voluntary plans, such as the blue flag and, as we heard from Cefin Campbell, Taclo'r Tywi in Golden Grove, and develop a risk matrix, as has happened in England, where we can communicate daily with farmers as to how appropriate it would be to spread slurry, enabling us to use new technology and using real-time communication in a far more dynamic and sophisticated way than these primal regulations that just follow a calendar and will ultimately lead to more problems than they will solve.

I've taken part in past debates on the introduction of the Welsh Government's NVZ approach, so I'm largely going to use my time today to highlight the plight and example of one particular farming family and how these regulations will affect them. But for the purpose of clarity, I will repeat my long-standing views that these regulations should never have been introduced; they are unnecessary, disproportionate and devastating to the farming industry.

The Conservative motion has been put forward by my colleague James Evans, and as Llyr has pointed out, this motion today will not cancel those regulations, but I very much hope that there'll be support in this Chamber this afternoon for the start of a process that could ultimately lead to the scrapping and repealing of these appalling regulations.

I'd like to highlight the plight of one tenant farming family in my own constituency: Brian Jones, his wife, Susan, and son, Andrew. As farmers to Coed y Parc in Caersws, a 105-acre all-grassland farm, which is the home to an 85-strong closed dairy herd, they've been farming there since 1973 on a lifetime tenancy agreement. Brian Jones has put some comments together and I'm going to read what he's said.

These are his words: 'I've been milking cows my entire life, starting from when I was just 12 years old, and will mark my sixty-sixth year on dairy farming this year. It's what we do as a family. It's our life. We have never had a pollution incident here.' I'll say that again. 'From someone who's been farming on that farm for 66 years'—I hope Joyce Watson is listening as well—'we have never had a pollution incident here.' He goes on to say: 'NRW, through their own assessment, have confirmed there is no pollution here, but we still need to comply with these new regulations and carry out work at an eye-watering cost in the region of £70,000.' 'Who is going to pay for that?', Mr Jones asks. Perhaps Joyce Watson, who also represents him, could write to him and let him know, given Joyce's comments this afternoon.

He went on to say: 'The landlords have refused and the bank won't lend us the money to carry out the work on a property we don't own. I'm at my wit's end and fear that, in three years' time, we could well see the end of our family farming life here. I have no objection to a polluter-pays policy, but this is going to cripple the industry if nothing has changed. The Welsh Government must consider the financial implications of these regulations on small and medium-sized farm businesses and tenant farmers as a matter of urgency.'

I've heard views this afternoon, and I heard Joyce Watson's comments about hypocrisy, and I agree with Joyce: there is plenty of hypocrisy here from the Welsh Government. I was very pleased to hear Jane Dodds's views this afternoon—most of them, not all of them. It sounds like Jane is going to support this motion as well today, which I very much welcome. A lot of what Jane said was very well put together, I thought. But what Jane did say, talking about us as Welsh Conservatives, is that we have to use our voices to persuade our colleagues in Westminster on X, Y and Z. Well, I say this gently to Jane: it is a great shame that Jane could not use her voice to persuade the only Liberal Democrat Member here to vote against the repealing of the regulations at the back end of the last Senedd.

These views are not simply politically motivated; it's not simply a politically motivated debate this afternoon, as some Members may want to suggest. This is real life. So, I hope that the Government and Members will support our motion, and I firmly hope that this takes us down a road to the process of repealing these terrible, terrible regulations. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I call on the Minister for Rural Affairs and North Wales, and Trefnydd, Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Farming in Wales has a reputation with consumers for high production standards in relation to both animal welfare and protecting the environment. As the vast majority of land in Wales is managed by the agricultural sector, Wales's farmers play a vital role in safeguarding our shared natural heritage.

As a Government, we support the ambition of Welsh farmers to be the most climate and nature-friendly in the world, an ambition that will be given greater impetus by addressing the damage being caused by widespread agricultural pollution year after year. I fully recognise that many are farming to high environmental standards, but we must make more rapid progress on reducing pollution from agriculture across the whole industry and across the whole of Wales.

Despite the significant publicity these new regulations have attracted, and the restrictions on NRW's ability to investigate suspected incidences of pollution due to COVID-19, there have been 76 substantiated agricultural pollution incidents so far this year, which, on average, remain above three per week. This continued disregard for the negative impact on our environment and society is unacceptable.

Levels of pollution caused by nitrates, phosphorus and ammonia exceed critical thresholds across Wales, and reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture are needed to tackle the climate change emergency. These pollutants are detrimental to the quality of our environment, public health and economic development. 

The control of agricultural pollution regulations, which are comparable to those in the rest of the UK and Europe, require the use of farming practices that are proven to deliver benefits to the environment and farm productivity. Many farmers understand the need for action and are already taking steps to maintain high environmental standards on their farms. Welsh farmers are more than capable of working to these baseline standards and many already exceed them.

Before the industry can claim to be the most climate and nature-friendly in the world, all of our farms must first adopt recognised good-practice standards of production. The regulations apply in a phased approach over a period of three years, providing farmers with time to adapt and improve, and we will continue to support them to do so.

A wide range of support tools continue to be delivered through the Farming Connect advisory service to help farm businesses tackle pollution issues and to support the implementation of the control of agricultural pollution regulations. With the support of Farming Connect, over 5,000 farm businesses have developed nutrient management, infrastructure and business plans, and over 2,500 farm businesses have attended Farming Connect events focused on the steps that they can take to reduce agricultural emissions. 

We have seen strong interest in the recent application windows for the sustainable production grants and yard coverings schemes. This includes support for simple, cost-effective solutions for improved manure management, such as clean and dirty water separation. These schemes are part of the £44.5 million the Welsh Government has already made available to support sustainable farming practices. Future funding support will be determined when budgets have been agreed following the UK Government's comprehensive spending review.

The regulations are in line with the environmental principles promoted by Members of the Senedd, by adopting a precautionary polluter-pays approach. The approach we have taken is not just about nitrate pollution, as James Evans seems to think. It recognises and integrates the advice of the UK Climate Change Committee and the NFU's ambition to reach net-zero emissions in Wales and across the UK. The control of agricultural emissions is an integral part of achieving this target.

The approach also recognises the impact of ammonia emissions on sensitive habitats and public health. It recognises the impact of phosphorus on our river special areas of conservation, including on economic development in those areas. We cannot tackle our nature emergency without tackling all of these pollutants.

We are making progress on these issues, and a single set of clear baseline standards will enable us to secure that progress and make the further advances we urgently need to make. I'd like to remind Russell George and other Members that NRW publicly welcomed all of the all-Wales regulations.

There is no doubt that adapting to these baseline standards will be challenging for some in the industry, and I recognise that every farm business is different and there may be other ways of achieving our objective of reducing emissions and of protecting people and nature in Wales. It's for this reason that I have provided the industry with the opportunity to develop alternative measures, and provision has been made for this in the regulations. I want to continue to work with all of our stakeholders to ensure any alternative measures will work effectively for farm businesses and the environment upon which we all rely. So, I call on all stakeholders again, including the farming unions, who have long advocated an alternative approach, to put forward viable proposals for alternative measures that will deliver equal or greater reductions in pollution. Any approach must be established in law. Voluntary approaches play an important role in safeguarding our environment, but statutory baseline standards are an essential component.

This Government fully recognises agriculture is not the only cause of pollution. Regulating to protect the environment from agricultural pollution brings the sector into closer alignment with other industries where a high level of regulation applies. Welsh farming must embrace its future and take advantage of trade opportunities, and to do that, it needs to adopt a sustainable approach with appropriate standards of production, and the new regulatory baseline helps protect our trading position for the future prosperity of the agricultural industry. The regulations were robustly scrutinised before they came into force, but I do support the call from Welsh Conservatives and Plaid Cymru for further consideration by the relevant committee on the effective implementation of regulations to strengthen the resilience of our farming communities and strengthen the resilience of the natural environment. So, it's for these reasons I propose replacing the first point of the motion and will vote to retain the second, if the amendments are adopted. Diolch.

There are no Members who have indicated that they wish to make an intervention, therefore I call on Samuel Kurtz to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Firstly, I'd like to thank all speakers for participating in this afternoon's debate and bringing forward meaningful and insightful contributions. I'd also like to thank the Minister for her response and her positive discussions around the need for the committee to look at this, and I look forward to working with her on agricultural matters, and on rural affairs more generally, to help deliver a fairer, sustainable and more prosperous future for Welsh farmers.

Whilst I welcome that the Government has refrained from a delete-all approach to their amendment, it is disappointing that, when, as this motion has such cross-party support, they have still felt the need to table an amendment. Despite this, we will be abstaining on their amendment during voting time.

As this is a new Senedd term with a number of new faces here in the Chamber and on Zoom, it is only right that we look at these NVZ regulations once again, as the detrimental effect that this policy will have on the Welsh agricultural industry will impact us all, not just Members representing rural areas. Today's debate has highlighted the strength of feeling on this topic, not that the industry and those speaking against the NVZs are opposed to improving environmental standards, but quite the opposite. We believe that there is a better, more meaningful and constructive way forward that brings about the necessary improvements, but does so in a manner that avoids penalising those who are already doing the right thing. We also believe that there is a way forward that doesn't jeopardise the future of farms across Wales. I make reference to the story from Russell George regarding the farmer in his area: it's a story that will resonate with all of us who have spoken to farmers in our areas who understand the plight that this will cause, the difficulties that an NVZ policy will put on them financially and mentally. And for Joyce Watson to talk about hypocrisy, I would challenge her that hypocrisy is the Government to announce funding for a fantastic agricultural charity dealing with mental health, but yet, to bring forward legislation such as this, that their own report understands, provides such—[Interruption.]—provides such a negative effect on the mental health of young farmers across Wales.

It's also pleasing to hear Cefin Campbell mention and speak so positively on this. Cefin and I will know each other through hustings during the election period, and this was the only topic that you will be surprised to know that Cefin and I agreed on, but it's great to hear that we have got this cross-party support on this, and that shows just how important it is that we bring together a consensus on a policy that will affect all of Wales.

And it would be very easy to stand here and criticise the policy and the decision to implement it without offering an alternative solution. And I would disagree with the Minister's previous comments that a voluntary farmer-led solution has not been forthcoming or could not be successful. First Milk, who operate a creamery in Pembrokeshire, have a number of dairy farms in my constituency and a number of dairy farmers in my constituency supply them with milk. They have seen successes with their nutrient offsetting project, which is already delivering environmental benefits in west Wales. This offsetting project forms the basis of a potential solution, which has already been talked about here this afternoon: the blue flag farming scheme, which I know that the Minister is aware of. This voluntary, farmer-led scheme, if rolled out and externally audited, would deliver the environmental benefits that the current NVZ policy would fail to do, and it would also deliver on the Welsh Government's own commitment to work in partnership with stakeholders. This, instead of imposing a heavy-handed regulatory solution, would help bring the farming community along and re-establish trust. And also, as Cefin Campbell rightfully mentioned, the technology is there, it's developing, where we can have this voluntary approach that brings about the necessary changes and improves those environmental standards. 

The difficulties of this past year has led us all to hear the phrase 'follow the science' far more than we have previously. And while this motto should rightly be applied to decisions relating to the pandemic, the same sentiment must also be applied to policy decisions such as this. And there is clear scientific evidence available across the water in the Republic of Ireland. In 2003, a whole-territory NVZ was established, and in 2019, key findings from the Irish Environmental Protection Agency showed that nearly half of river sites have unsatisfactory nitrate concentrations; 44 per cent of sites were showing an increase in nitrate trend for the period 2013 to 2019. Loads of total nitrogen and total phosphorus to the marine environment from Irish rivers have increased by 24 per cent, and 31 per cent, respectively, since 2012-14. And finally, almost half—49 per cent—of all groundwater sites had increasing nitrate concentrations for the period of 2013 and 2019. If we are to truly follow the science, we must take into consideration the evidence of other countries who have implemented NVZs, and the damming conclusions that they have drawn. 

Before I bring this debate to an end, I would like to share with Members a quote from a study on the effectiveness of NVZs conducted by Professors Worrall, Spencer and Burt of Durham University, who said, and I quote:

'The lack of objective success for NVZ designation suggests that nitrate pollution control strategies based on input management need to be rethought.'

Let's not wait until it's too late to rethink this strategy. 

In closing, I urge Members to vote with the motion so that these NVZ regulations are brought before a committee to allow further scrutiny and consideration of their adverse impact on Welsh agriculture. Diolch.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Objection. I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

We will now suspend proceedings temporarily to allow changeovers in the Chamber. If you're leaving the Chamber, please do so promptly. The bell will be rung two minutes before proceedings restart.

So, all Members leaving the Chamber, please ensure you do so quietly, and ensure that you do leave so we can have the cleaning for the changeover.

Plenary was suspended at 16:28.

The Senedd reconvened at 16:41, with the Deputy Presiding Officer in the Chair.