Item 5 is the next item, the debate on the Economy, Trade, and Rural Affairs Committee report on the review of the Water Resources (Control of Agricultural Pollution) (Wales) Regulations 2021. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion. Paul Davies.

Motion NDM8090 Paul Davies

To propose that the Senedd:

Notes the report of the Economy, Trade, and Rural Affairs Committee on its Inquiry: Review of The Water Resources (Control of Agricultural Pollution) (Wales) Regulations 2021, which was laid in the Table Office on 8 June 2022.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I move the motion tabled in my name. Llywydd, it feels like a long time ago that the Senedd unanimously passed a motion for a committee to urgently review the Welsh Government's Water Resources (Control of Agricultural Pollution) (Wales) Regulations 2021. And that's because it was.

The Economy, Trade, and Rural Affairs Committee took this task extremely seriously, agreeing to embark on this review at our first meeting. However, as Members will be aware, the committee's report was delayed because of a judicial review into the legality of the regulations, which was out of the committee's hands. That judicial review was important to this debate, not just to explain why the committee's report took so long to produce, but also to highlight just how significant these regulations are.

Whilst all regulations we vote on are important, these agricultural pollution regulations affect things that are core to sustaining life in Wales—food production, our water quality and the wider environment. The Welsh Government believe that the regulations will ultimately reduce pollution in our rivers, avoid pollution swapping and prevent or minimise increased losses of nutrients in the environment. The Minister made it very clear that by taking this approach the regulations deliver against a wide range of Wales's responsibilities and provide a holistic response to environmental challenges related to agricultural production.

Nevertheless, in order to implement these regulations, many farmers will be required to undertake compliance work, which will include significant construction work at a significant cost, and that could threaten their viability. Therefore, it's crucial that these regulations set the right balance between protecting our natural environment and maintaining a workable regulatory system for Welsh farmers.

Now, before I run through the report and its recommendations, I just want to highlight the Welsh Government's response to our report and its relevance to this debate. The Welsh Government's response was due on 14 September, and yet it was eventually laid on 5 October, which was the absolute deadline for inclusion on today's Plenary agenda. This delay severely hampered Members' ability to scrutinise the Government's response, and as such it has an impact on this debate. Therefore, I sincerely hope that in the future all Ministers will reflect on the importance of responding to Senedd committee reports in a timely manner, so that we can have fully informed debates on Senedd committee reports.

Now, the Economy, Trade, and Rural Affairs Committee launched a consultation on the regulations, which ran over the summer of 2021, and a wide range of stakeholders—including anglers, farmers and environmental organisations—responded to the consultation. Members will not be surprised to know that the regulations have proved controversial. In response to our consultation, farmers have referred to them as 'draconian' and 'punitive', and they raised concerns that they will be prohibitively expensive to implement and may push farms out of business.

On the other hand, we received evidence from environmental organisations and anglers who welcomed the regulations, arguing that they are long overdue. They told us that the current system does not deter the worst agricultural polluters, and that action in the form of these regulations went some way to curb the pollution in our rivers. So, as a committee, we were acutely aware that these regulations needed to strike the right balance and were as effective as possible. Once the judicial review had concluded, the committee was able to continue with our inquiry and lay our report. 

Llywydd, it contains 10 recommendations, and, as time is limited this afternoon, I'd like to concentrate on three specific areas: support for implementation, derogations, and concerns around farming by calendar. Firstly, one of the pressing issues raised was the cost to farmers of implementing these regulations, and it was made pretty clear to the committee that farms could be put out of business. Therefore, I was pleased to see a commitment from the Welsh Government of an additional £20 million to help farmers implement these regulations, as was made clear in the written statement that accompanied the Welsh Government's response to the committee's report. I'm also pleased to see a commitment from the Welsh Government to provide the committee with a detailed breakdown of the provisions being made, including direct financial support and additional funding to advisory services. And perhaps in responding to this debate, the Minister will confirm when the committee can expect that information.

Similarly, there needs to be support for public bodies. Natural Resources Wales have estimated that they will require 60 additional staff to deliver the bare minimum, with possibly over 200 staff members needed to deliver the full product of enforcement around these regulations. Of course, a patchy, under-resourced enforcement regime will give us the worst of both worlds, and I was a little concerned to read in the Government's response that the service level agreement for the regulations has not yet been agreed by Natural Resources Wales and the Welsh Government. Surely Natural Resources Wales will need time to recruit and train additional staff, and so it's vital that a service level agreement is put in place as soon as possible. So, I do hope the Minister will give us an update on its development and any further information she has on how long it may take Natural Resources Wales to be in a position to enforce these regulations.

Llywydd, the committee also received some concerns regarding derogations. We were concerned that the withdrawal of the derogation for qualifying grassland farms would put Welsh farmers at a competitive disadvantage, and so we recommended that the Welsh Government reintroduces the derogation that allowed qualifying grassland farms to spread up to 250 kg per hectare of nitrogen. Farming unions warned that the decision not to include the derogation could require destocking on many Welsh farms, with impacts on farm viability, critical mass within the supply chain and employment, and that the lower rate of 170 kg per hectare could lead to the offshoring of production to countries with lower standards. Therefore, I'm pleased to see, in the written statement accompanying the Government's response, that Welsh farms will now be able to apply for a licence to spread a higher amount of nitrogen. And I do hope the Minister will today provide assurances to Welsh farmers that this measure will not result in further bureaucracy for them.

Finally, I want to mention farming by calendar. Part 5 of the Welsh Government's regulations stipulates closed periods, when spreading is prohibited. And whilst there are exceptions for some holding and soil types, the closed period runs from October to January, with some further restrictions running until the end of February. The committee heard strong arguments about the importance of flexibility for farmers in when they spread slurry, and that was really reinforced to us during our committee trip to the Agriculture Research Centre at Gelli Aur in Carmarthenshire. We had already heard great things about their work on slurry processing and the use of technology to determine the best time to spread. During the visit, we were shown equipment that supports an app the centre has been developing. It was an impressive combination of a weather station and sensors that monitor the conditions, where the information gathered is fed into an app that processes the data and gives farmers a red, amber or green status for spreading slurry. We were told that the system was tested during the 2021-22 closed period, and the findings were that the app was showing a green status for spreading through February and March, meaning that the weather and ground conditions meant it was fine to spread slurry. However, almost as soon as the closed period ended, the app flagged the conditions as red, indicating it was not suitable for spreading slurry. Of course, we are all very aware of how unpredictable the weather can be, so it's vital that farmers are allowed to move over to a technology-backed system based on real world, live conditions, not a calendar system based on seasonal averages, as soon as possible.

The committee recommended that the Welsh Government should prioritise any suitable alternative proposals that utilise technology rather than closed periods for spreading, and, whilst I very much welcome the Welsh Government’s openness to new suggestions, I am disappointed their response puts the onus on the farming community rather than the Government proactively pursuing technological alternatives to farming by calendar. Therefore, I hope the Minister will reflect on this and give it further consideration.

Llywydd, the committee's report covers everything from water quality data to enforcement and incorporating the regulations into national minimum standards, and I urge every Member in this Chamber to read our report. We have asked the Welsh Government to review the effectiveness of alternative technological measures, to be fully transparent about the funding support available to farmers, and to provide assurances that there is adequate resourcing and guidance for Natural Resources Wales to monitor and enforce these regulations. As a committee, we intend to keep reviewing these regulations in the months and years ahead to ensure their effectiveness, and so, on that note, Llywydd, I look forward to Members' contributions to this debate. Diolch.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this afternoon's debate. The Welsh Government's NVZ policy, the topic of this report, has been a flagship yet controversial policy of this and former Welsh Governments. Therefore, it was only right that this Senedd tasked the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee to urgently review these regulations. I know that the Minister has been keen to stress that these aren't NVZs, but with Parts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the water resources regulations word for word the same as that of an NVZ policy, then I'm afraid to say that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is indeed a duck.

Focusing on the report itself, I was disappointed to see the Welsh Government reject recommendation 1 of this paper, that

'The Welsh Government should re-introduce the derogation which allowed qualifying grassland farms to spread up to 250 kg/ha of nitrogen.'

Now, I appreciate that this was rejected on the basis that last week's joint statement with Plaid Cymru, as your co-operation partner, superseded recommendation 1, however, the content of that statement does leave the industry and me with several concerns. Despite the narrative that was pushed out, the statement did not offer our agricultural community any change in policy, unlike what recommendation 1 would have delivered. And, once again, the consultation announced on a possible licensing scheme will see the same evidence submitted and the same arguments discussed, so I really hope we don't see the same old outcome delivered. Because nothing, in terms of derogation, has been guaranteed, and let's not forget that a lower derogation limit puts Welsh farmers at a competitive disadvantage against other farmers across the UK, as committee Chair, Paul Davies, outlined earlier.

I also note with interest that the Welsh Government accepted recommendation 3 of the report, that

'The Minister should set out to the Committee her considerations of the impact these Regulations may have on the planning system'.

Despite accepting the proposal, the Welsh Government's response failed to recognise the fact that large numbers of planning applications will have to be submitted and processed in order for farms to meet the Welsh Government's regulations. Indeed, whilst it's the Welsh Government's view that the infrastructure requirements of the regulations do not significantly differ from pre-existing regulatory baselines, your response, Minister, fails to acknowledge that small-scale family farms do not have the existing infrastructure in place to adhere to these regulations. In return, this will mean that new planning applications will have to be submitted for infrastructure, with the potential for these applications to swamp local authorities, many of which already have planning departments under immense stress. Having read your response, I am not confident that you are fully aware of the impact and the way in which these applications will impede local authorities. 

And finally, taking me to recommendation 6, I was disappointed to learn that you have not accepted this proposal in full. The purpose of this recommendation was to illustrate the pressure that a bovine TB breakdown will cause on adhering to your regulations. There has been no clarification as to whether farms with herd breakdowns will be permitted to exceed the 170 kg per hectare nitrate limit. In these circumstances, farms under TB restrictions that are unable to move on cattle could see their stock numbers substantially increase, yet there is no explanation as to whether there has been consideration of this with these regulations. By adhering to TB regulations, by following the letter of the law on cattle movements when on a breakdown, farmers could be inadvertently contravening the water regulations. This can't be an oversight, so I seek some clarity that these farms won't be unfairly punished.

I remember being a young newspaper reporter, many years ago, discussing whether an all-Pembrokeshire or an all-Wales NVZ would be rolled out. Now, some six or seven years later, we are still discussing and debating the finer details of this policy. I hope you reconsider and accept all 10 recommendations submitted by the committee, implementing them in their fullest form. I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank our committee Chair, Paul Davies, all those who gave evidence and the clerking staff. Diolch, Llywydd.

Thank you to the committee, the Chair and all of the staff, as Sam Kurtz said, for their very thorough work on this inquiry. We must begin by acknowledging that we see far too many cases of water pollution in our waterways, and everyone must take responsibility and play their part—the farmers, yes, but also the water companies, construction companies, and everyone else. But, we must also recognise the role of the agricultural industry in our rural communities, in terms of its valuable contribution to our local economy, its invaluable contribution to culture and community, not to mention its central role, namely producing high-quality, nutritious food.

The first recommendation regarding the derogation goes to the heart of the problem. As the agricultural unions state in their response, the new regulations would have led to the majority of cattle farmers in Wales having to stock fewer cattle, impacting their viability, as well as the viability of related businesses, such as dairy factories and so on.

In the report, we see Aled Jones of the NFU as well as the FUW warning that the new regulations, as they stood, would be hugely damaging, particularly to the small upland farms of Wales. No word of a lie, I saw farmers in my constituency who were telling me that they would be getting rid of all of their cattle from the uplands. For some, this would mean that they would have to give up farming entirely, and for others, it meant stocking more sheep on the hills. Now, the irony with that, of course, is that removing cattle from the uplands and replacing them with sheep would lead to more damage in terms of biodiversity. The RSPB and other bodies argue that cattle are needed to graze our uplands, and this is noted in the report.

But in addition to this, forcing such a change so quickly would do the same to our agricultural communities as Margaret Thatcher did to our mining communities, which is to cause lasting damage almost overnight. That is why the recent joint statement between Plaid Cymru and the Government with regard to pausing the introduction of the next phase and considering the introduction of a licensing system for farmers, to enable them to spread up to 250 kg of nitrogen on their land, is to be warmly welcomed. Not only will this ensure the continuity of the backbone of our rural communities and everything associated with that, economically and culturally, but it will be of significant benefit to biodiversity in Wales, and that is very much to be welcomed too.

The report makes clear that the costs of building the necessary infrastructure are huge, and increasing, and the second recommendation makes it clear that transparency is needed regarding what support is available to farmers. It is clear that the amount initially allocated was nowhere near sufficient, as the evidence given by Gareth Hughes from the FUW noted. It is, therefore, good to see that the Government, in its agreement with Plaid Cymru, has secured an additional £20 million to try to ensure that farmers have the necessary infrastructure and resources. Will this be enough? Perhaps not, but it is much better than what was previously on offer in the previous situation.

Finally, the report refers to the need for farmers to construct or enhance their slurry storage. Now, once again, come to Dwyfor Meirionnydd and I’ll introduce you to farmers who sought planning permission to build new slurry storage facilities, but who found it difficult to obtain planning consent. It is very easy to state on paper that this, that or the other should be done, but it's a very different matter to act on those ambitions in the real world. So, in considering recommendation 3, it is good to see that the Government, again in its agreement with Plaid Cymru, will allow an additional two years to enable this work to progress, and to ensure the just transition that farmers need. Thank you very much.

I live in my constituency, in Caerphilly, and we have a concentrated area of farms, and around those farms are many houses, and you can imagine that constituents are very concerned about how slurry is dealt with and how these issues are regulated—perhaps more so in farms that are more isolated and less close to communities. Therefore, I think the regulations have been broadly welcomed by residents in Caerphilly, if not by all farms, and I think that's reflected in some of the comments that have been made by Mabon ap Gwynfor and by Sam Kurtz. And of course, it's reasonable to say that one size doesn't fit all, which was the direction of the report that's been produced.

I've got to disagree with the Chair on one point: he said that he was concerned that the Government took time to respond to the committee report. Well, actually, given the importance of these regulations and the importance of the issue to the Senedd as a whole, I think getting these right, getting the response right, and carrying two thirds of the Senedd with us when it comes to the implementation of the regulations is important, and I think that was what was managed in the days leading up to the Government's response. I think, therefore, you can see now that the Government's response should have—I would be surprised if it didn't have—a two-thirds majority of support in the Senedd, despite some of the concerns still expressed by the Conservatives who have spoken so far.

And I'd also say with regard to the regulations, these regulations have been subject to a quadruple set of scrutiny, more than many other regulations we see, so they've seen a Senedd debate, they've seen the committee inquiry, they've seen a judicial review, and the debate today. Those four things have scrutinised these regulations, plus many questions that I and many others have raised in the Chamber throughout the course of the last few years. So, there is certainly a case to be made that the Government have allowed a great deal of scrutiny of these regulations. I would say they've listened. I would say they've listened particularly with regard to recommendation 1, and as Sam Kurtz recognised, recommendation 1 is subject to the agreement now between Plaid Cymru and the Government, and I think that effectively addresses some of those concerns. I think what we're seeing today is a listening Government that is listening to the residents in my constituency who are concerned about agricultural pollution, but also to those farmers who have concerns about the impacts. The money that is now being put towards that, plus the additional consultation, demonstrate that this Government have effectively listened without reducing their commitment to controlling nitrogen pollution.

So, I'd welcome the Government's response on the whole, and I'm glad I was able to take part in the inquiry, because it certainly showed all aspects of this process to me. I would say to the Minister now that she has done a good job in ensuring that we can make progress and protect our environments, our rural environments, from nitrogen pollution.

May I thank the committee and the committee Chair?

A huge amount of work has been done by the committee, for which we're very grateful, to make the case for a more proportionate response to what is a really serious issue. I haven't spoken to any farmer who doesn't recognise that the water quality needs to be better. Everybody wants to work together on this, a team Wales approach.

I have written to the First Minister to ask for an economic impact assessment. I did this in August, recognising that increased costs form part of farmers' concerns around the future. I'm concerned that the unintended consequences of these regulations will be felt far beyond the individual farm gate, because not enough attention has been paid to the wider impact on our rural communities, or implications for pre- and post-farm-gate supply chains. I was reminded only today that the proposed 170 kg derogation limit would result in a destocking of dairy cattle at 17 per cent—a loss to us of some 330 million litres of milk production. We really do need to work together to ensure that the four-year review period, included in the regulations, looks not just at the impact of the regulations on reducing agricultural pollution, but at the impact of the regulations on the industry itself.

My first question, if I may, Minister, is to understand a little bit more about the proposed licensing scheme and how that sits in relation to recommendation 1 of the report. I have questions, for example, as to how many farm businesses can expect to benefit. Will there be any learning to inform potential changes to the regulations? What are the parameters of that consultation to ensure it's fair, balanced and evidence led, and what are the successful criteria for that consultation? Farmers have repeatedly said that a delay alone is just a sticking plaster, so we do need clarity for farmers around what this licensing scheme actually entails in the long term.

I'd like to also focus on recommendation 2, and the costs of introducing these regulations. The funding package to date falls far below what the Government's own figures are for the upfront cost of around £360 million. The FUW have estimated that the cost could actually be in the region of £450 million, which is a huge difference. The additional £20 million last week can't be put into context without being provided with full detail of financial support to date, and, in the face of ever-growing cost pressures on our farmers, it does sound like a drop in the ocean.

The new technology, as highlighted by Paul Davies, is really interesting, and I am concerned that the new technology coming forward could actually negate the need for new slurry stores to be built. Some farmers will have forked out huge sums only to find that the expenditure wasn't needed, putting huge additional cost pressures on farms. So, there needs to be some alignment between the proposed licensing scheme, the four-year review period and the introduction of alternative measures. To be provocative, my question would be: why can't we wait until the new technology comes into play and see the effect that that has?

We do really need clarity around what additional resources are needed, for example, from NRW, highlighted by the Chair and by others as well. Without that effective regulatory role, these regulations simply punish farmers. Also, I pick up the point from my colleague Mabon ap Gwynfor around the capacity of local authority planning departments. They are massively overstretched. In Ceredigion, I understand that there is one planning officer who is dealing with all of the farmers who are putting in applications for slurry stores at the moment.

We need a team Wales approach. In the light of the announcement made by the Government and Plaid Cymru last week, I'd welcome clarity on whether the deadline for alternative proposals will be extended, and whether the Welsh Government will now revisit the alternative proposals put forward by the sector. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Can I start by commending the committee for a fabulous report? But it is a shame that we ever got to having to have this report. I've just listened to Jane Dodds from the Liberal Democrats preach how bad this is for farmers, but if her party had stepped up in the last term of the Senedd and supported farmers, like Plaid Cymru and us on the Conservative benches did, we would never, ever be in this situation. So, I find some of her comments quite hypocritical.

What I do want to talk about to the Minister—and we do welcome some of the announcements that you have made—is around the additional £20 million, and on recommendation 3 about the pressure this is going to put on our planning authorities. I do not believe, and nor do the industry, that this additional £20 million is going to help farmers to cope with these regulations when they come in, with the infrastructure costs, and everything associated with that. I've got a number of friends who are farmers, who say that some of the money that you're making available won't even put the concrete in the ground to allow this to happen.

What I'd like to hear from the Minister—. Yes, additional money is welcomed, but we're going to have to see more investment, because if you're asking farmers yet again to fork out more and more money, it's going to make farm businesses unviable and unsustainable, going forward. I'm sure we don't want to see these regulations driving our farmers from the land, from producing food to keep our public fed and watered. Because if we see our farmers leaving, our rural communities right across our country are going to die. I know that's not something that I want to see, and my colleagues don't want to see here. So, additional funding is welcomed, and I do hope that you put more money available to support the recommendations that you've put forward. Thank you.

I'm going to start by acknowledging and welcoming what was announced by Plaid Cymru and the Government last week—not quite as cynical as some, perhaps. It's not the end of the process, of course, but it does keep the debate alive, and it does mean that there has been a change of attitude. The other choice was that we just let it go and carry on. So, I think we need to acknowledge that great work has been done on these benches to get to this point and to at least provide an opportunity that at least some Welsh farmers will be licensed and that everything will fall into place to ensure that they can spread 250 kg per hectare of nitrates on the land.

The £20 million, of course, is in addition to what's already been committed, but nobody's saying that that's going to pay for everything. But surely, it's better than what was there previously, so don't be so negative and don't be so cynical. But we're not blinded by the fact that there's a lot of work still to be done, and one of the things that I want to refer to also is that there is going to be another look at the regulatory impact assessment. Because we're in a different context—there's the cost-of-living crisis, we know that the costs of inputs in the industry have gone through the roof. The cost of construction, and the inflation in construction, to meet the infrastructure requirement is entirely transformed. And I think it's quite right therefore that that assessment should be looked at again so that it does reflect the new context—Ukraine, food security, and all of those things—that we need to bear in mind.

But there are still serious questions and real concerns that remain, and the Chair, of course, has referred to one of them, namely this adherence to the closed periods. I've raised this with you in the past, Minister; two years and more ago, I referred to the fact that some of the UK's greatest environmentalists said that farming by calendar was counterproductive. And you agreed that you were struggling with that approach, and with justifying that approach, and you acknowledged at the time that it doesn't, as we heard, take account of the fact that there could be days in the open period that could be totally inappropriate for spreading slurry, and days in the closed periods that would be appropriate. But, of course, that's what you've chosen to incorporate in the regulations.

So, in responding to the debate, perhaps you could tell us what persuaded you that that was acceptable. What changed your mind against the views of some of the great UK environmentalists, that looking at a calendar to see whether the circumstances are favourable was better than looking through the window? That's essentially what the regulations say. And your response to that recommendation—it's recommendation 8 if memory serves me—does refer to technology, and that technology is being developed, and that we're approaching a time where we'll be able to adopt a system that is far more real time in nature, and will provide precision. So, the technology is there, and it's almost ready to be rolled out across the country. 

But in your response, you say that you will consider this during the four-year review. Well, does that mean that you will force the sector to invest in infrastructure, to spend millions upon millions of public money—and their own money—and then perhaps, in two years' time, you'll say 'Well, we have technology now, this won't be necessary'? So, you truly to need to reconsider on that point. 

Two more points just before I close. I think that contractors seem to have been forgotten by the Welsh Government in this. They're one of the biggest employers in our rural communities, with most of their work, of course, based on small, family-run farms. The three-month closed period is going to be pretty catastrophic for many of them. When 31 January arrives, they may well have no labour, no equipment to empty all these new big slurry stores, because, of course, they'd have little or no income coming in over the previous months. Some will go out of business. Some will vote with their feet and leave the industry. And if there are fewer contractors, then who on earth is going to be there to empty the bulging slurry stores when the closed period comes to an end on what many of us are now describing as national slurry spreading week? And if there's no-one there to move the slurry, then what happens? Maybe you could tell us how you think farmers can resolve that. I hope the regulatory impact assessment will take full account of the key role that contractors play.

Finally, we've heard a lot about planning; whilst I acknowledge there is a capacity issue, what I would ask you is: what is your message to those farmers who have actually already applied for planning permission to meet the new requirements with bigger slurry stores, but who've had their planning applications refused, not once, not twice, many times, and now find themselves not able to meet your new requirements and not being allowed to adapt in order to meet your new requirements? What's your message to them? Because what I'm hearing is that you are effectively forcing them to shut down the family farm.

Can I thank the committee for their report, and the Minister for the recent statement as well related to this? I better declare at the outset my role as the salmon champion. But also, I have to say, for the decade that I've been an elected representative, I've also championed the needs and aspirations of small and medium-scale farmers, particularly those who are strongly sustainable in their farming and are strongly pro-environment and environmental gains as well. And many of them, including award-winning farmers, are within my own constituency, which is often described as a former coalfield constituency. It's far more than that; it's a very rural constituency, and has always had farming embedded deep within it long before industry came there. 

We are facing really challenging times for farming, but we're also facing real challenges in terms of nature. We're in a nature crisis and a biodiversity crisis. We've seen recent announcements by the Welsh Government, who recognise that. We're running up to COP15 with the biodiversity announcements. We're looking for the targets to come back, to be bolted down by Julie James, the Minister, and to be translated into action here in Wales. So, that forms the backdrop of where we are. 

It's interesting, the response to this report—the polar response to it. Environmental groups have lined up to say this is really disappointing, this is really sad, this is a delay, and a delay means, once again, we're going to see polluted rivers. Farming Unions—the Farmers Union of Wales, the National Farmers Union, and others—have lined up to say that this is a breathing space. That's an actual quote from one of them—a breathing space, a chance to rethink perhaps, not just with the licensing and so on, but, actually, more fundamentally. That's what they're putting out to their members. So, it leaves me in some confusion, Llywydd, as to actually what we are discussing here, not just on the back of the report, but what the Government has announced. Is this a fundamental rethink? Is it just a temporary pause? Is it some tweaking? Or is it, actually, that in three, four months, five months, we proceed as normal and we do the review, and we're actually going to proceed as has originally been laid out? I don't know. Perhaps the Minister can answer me today, but the challenge and the diversity in those responses has been quite telling. 

There's clearly been a role for this committee report. There has been a challenge within the courts that was unsuccessful. The committee actually had to wait to see what that was before it brought forward its own consideration and have the Minister in front of them. I see that. There's also been the co-operation agreement as well, and I have no doubt, personally, that the co-operation agreement has played into what we're seeing playing out in front of us right at this moment. But my message is as simple as this: we can't carry on, given the uncertainty out there. The points that Llyr just made about investment decisions by farmers are well made, as is the point that Jayne made about exactly the same: are we going to say to ones who've already invested, 'Well, that was a waste of money' because we're now going to have some super-duper technology solution that means that was wasted money?

There may well be technology solutions coming down the line in future. Absolutely. But we cannot discount the investment that some farmers have chosen to make to try and do the right thing, to actually go to their bank managers, and say, 'Can we lever in some funding? I'll need to take out a 20-year loan in order to do it. I'm going to go to some of the Farming Connect support and so on to do this as well, but I'm going to have to take a decision here.' We can't throw them under the bus now; we're going to have to say to them, 'That is money well spent not only for your farm, but for the environment as well'. Farmers will welcome some additional time, there's no doubt, within this, but, I think, we need to be absolutely honest, as this goes forward with the consultation on licencing and so on, what this actually means, whether it's a fundamental rethink of something else. 

One thing I did want to stress was the importance of these new NRW advisers. For too long, we haven't had the right information, the right people standing on site, who understand farming, but also are willing to give the most modern, the most up-to-date thinking in terms of what the best environmental support is. I've got environmentally award-winning farmers in my patch, they know what they're doing, but it's not true of every farmer. When that farmer also has an agronomist saying, 'Let me advise you on this stuff, and, by the way, I'm selling it as well', that's not the way to proceed. So, these NRW advisers, the quantum of them, and the expertise of them, and getting them in place in time, is going to be critical. 

Let me just turn to one point that illustrates this classic thing we were saying about uncertainty here. It relates to a few contributions that have already been made. On recommendation 1—and it is worth just pulling out just a couple of points from here—the Government is unable to accept this recommendation. This is to do with derogation on grassland farms that spread up to 250 kg per hectare and so on. It goes on to say that at no point did derogation in previous regimes enable the application of nutrients above the level of crop need, et cetera. But, then, of course, there's been a statement. I suspect it's come out of the Plaid Cymru co-operation agreement. We need, at some point, to draw a line under all of this. There is a delay; next spring, we need to have absolute certainty, because, frankly, small and medium-scale farmers won't forgive us unless we give real certainty as soon as possible, and neither, frankly, will the environment: the quality of our rivers, the quality of our soil and everything else. We need to decide which way is the way forward, and, then, really get on with it. 

I have read the report with interest. I've made my views very clear on agricultural pollution many times over many years here in this Chamber. I contrasted the tough, but necessary, action that we've taken in Wales with the regime of negligence in England only last week. That has enabled a proliferation of agricultural pollution in our waterways with devastating environmental consequences. So, while I'm cautious, and I mean extremely cautious, to welcome any watering down of the regulations—because that's what it is—that were introduced last April, I appreciate that politics is the art of the possible, and, in the end, whatever works to protect the environment is the way forward. So, I support the Minister's resolve to find a sustainable solution that works for our farming industry, but achieves those vital ecological ends. And you won't be surprised that I'll be watching that extremely closely and speaking out, if I feel the need. I am frustrated that some farming businesses failed to take necessary steps to comply with the regulations pending that unsuccessful judicial review. The Minister's recent statement implied as much. 

Will the Member give way?

In a minute.

It's not acceptable, and it does really set a poor precedent. We've heard from Huw Irranca quite clearly that it is the case that most farmers want to comply with and see the advantage of a favourable environmental condition, not only on their farms but in the rivers as well. It is not the intention, we all know that it isn't the intention, of most farmers to pollute. Unfortunately, it has been the case that there have been instances where deliberate pollution has happened and there's been plenty of evidence to that end.

Thank you. I'm grateful to the Member for giving way, and I'd just like to declare an interest as well; it was remiss of me not to do that at the beginning.

I did notice.

But, at the same time, the reason that these businesses have failed to comply in the sense that you're saying is that they're trying to; they're trying their very best to go to local authorities to ask for that planning application, to ask for that planning to be approved so that they can install the infrastructure, the slurry lagoons that are necessary, but they're being turned down by local authorities.

That is probably the case in some instances. I don't accept it's the case in all instances, though, I have to say. And I don't think that businesses should be rewarded for failure to prepare or to comply with legal obligations. However, I do appreciate that the rising costs and global circumstances that were mentioned have added additional pressures. Although, actually, these regulations were well known well ahead of that. 

So, I'd like to know about the £20 million—and I welcome it—to help achieve compliance, but to be reassured that people aren't being double paid—that people who've already been paid to comply aren't getting more money or the same money twice. 

The committee recommends this derogation that we've heard about—the 250 kg per hectare of nitrogen. While that was not accepted, the implementation date for the 170 kg per hectare limit has been put back. I find that extremely disappointing. The Minister has announced a consultation on the 250 kg per hectare licensing scheme until 2050. We should, of course, assess the economic and the environmental impact of the reduced limit, but in my view, 170 should remain the default limit. I support Wales Environment Link's view that alternative ways of managing animal waste should be found, as opposed to reintroducing that higher limit. So, there are other ways. If we don't look at other ways, we're back to exactly where we started again, and agricultural pollution is the most frequent cause of contamination in our waterways. If we fail to deal with that, we fail our farming community and the wider environment. With that in mind, we should all support whatever is available and whatever works for the protection of our environment, which, ultimately, is protecting the future sustainability of all our land and our waterways.

The Minister for rural affairs now to contribute to the debate—Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. I would like to thank the Chair and members of the committee for their work in carrying out this review and drawing up the report and recommendations. And I thank those who've participated in today's debate and I will try to respond to as many points as possible.

The report from the committee raises a series of constructive points with respect to the implementation of the regulations. The report provides recommendations that seek to help us ensure that the regulations and support available to help farmers comply are both well understood and adequate to the scale of the challenge we all face. I've agreed to provide further detail and assurances on funding and in relation to NRW's enforcement role and the arrangements for regulatory review. I've provided further clarification in relation to how we guard against unintended consequences and how they can be applied in a way that safeguards the interest of tenant farmers and those facing TB restrictions. 

The committee has also made recommendations in relation to the work of the Wales land management forum, and I fully support the spirit of those recommendations. I am not able to direct the work of that forum, but with the agreement of its members, I am happy to continue to work with the group in exactly the way that the committee has recommended. The first recommendation of the committee report seeks the introduction of a process to allow farmers to spread higher levels of slurry, providing certain conditions are met. I've been working throughout the summer on ensuring that we find a way of responding positively to this recommendation and, as part of the co-operation agreement, Plaid Cymru has also been closely and actively engaged in this work.

Last week, I published a written statement arising from those discussions with Plaid Cymru, which sets out our intention to make provision for a consultation to take place to examine this proposal, and to bring forward changes to the regulations should it be established that such a scheme is both practical for farmers and protective of the environment on which they, as do all of us, rely. So, just to reassure Jane Dodds, I want to say that I can't pre-empt the consultation. It's a meaningful consultation, so no design has been worked up in the way that you are asking for some assurance, because it would be wrong to have a consultation that wasn't meaningful. Huw Irranca-Davies asked if there was going to be a fundamental rethink—absolutely not. This is just delaying one regulation whilst we look at a licensing scheme, and we will be working with Plaid Cymru to design that scheme and we will be going out to a full consultation. Paul Davies, again talking about the licensing scheme, you mentioned the need to ensure no further bureaucracy, and I go back to what I was saying to Jane Dodds, the consultation will be out there; it will be a 12-week consultation. Please, everybody, put your views forward, because, then, as we make the design of the scheme, obviously, we can ensure that there's less bureaucracy.

It is not possible to accept the committee's recommendation in relation to recommendation 1 in the way it was formulated—a point I think I have explained in detail in my response to the committee's report. However, I do hope that committee will see that this does provide a way of responding positively in the spirit in which I know that the recommendation was intended. 

The Water Resources (Control of Agricultural Pollution) (Wales) Regulations—not nitrate vulnerable zones, Sam, you might want to continue discussing NVZs; clearly, you know the difference, I don't—are absolutely critical to delivering on our domestic and international legal obligations. And whilst the regulations focus on nitrates, the actions that they require are also a necessary means of addressing a range of other matters, all of which I know are extremely important to Members right across this Senedd.

Dealing with agricultural pollution is an urgent and necessary priority to mitigate the impact of the climate emergency, because of the greenhouse gasses it contains, as well as the release of emissions as a result of the environmental damage that it causes, and it needs, as Jane Dodds referred to, a team Wales approach. Agricultural pollution is the predominant source of harmful ammonia pollution, which threatens the development of children's lungs and levels of cardiac disease, as well as the conservation of ancient woodlands.

Quite a few Members raised the £20 million. James Evans mentioned it and clearly doesn't think that it's enough. And, as Llyr said, I don't think anybody would say that that would be the first amount of money that we've brought forward; we've brought significant funding forward. But let me just tell you: I don't have a pot of money where I can just find another £20 million, and it's just a pity that the UK Government put the bankers first, rather than our hard-working farmers. Joyce Watson looked for some assurance around farmers not being paid double, and I've always said that we could not give public money to ensure that farmers complied with the regulations that were already there, so I can assure you around that.

Several Members mentioned the new technology, and Cefin Campbell and I went to Gelli Aur to see how that technology was coming forward, and the Welsh Government's been very happy to support that. I hadn't been for about three years, I think, and it was good to see the progress that was being made. But we are still seeing substantiated agricultural pollution incidents every month reaching double figures this year again, and we have to do something now. Agricultural pollution is also a significant source of phosphate pollution, which is currently preventing the development of housing and other key infrastructure that we know is urgently needed to improve the lives of every community in Wales. So, I very much welcome the opportunity in this debate to underline my commitment to action on climate, to clean air, to water quality and to halting and reversing the decline in biodiversity, and I know that farmers—the majority of them—share those things as well. And any decision I make will honour and advance those commitments, and these commitments, let me just remind everybody, are enshrined in law. They are simply a reflection of our moral responsibility to hand on Wales's natural heritage to the next generation in a better state than we found it. 

In discussing our environmental obligations, it is, unfortunately, necessary to highlight that the UK Conservative Government has signalled its intention to repeal all retained EU law, and that includes critical environmental protections. So, I believe that this is a deeply misguided policy that will cause, at best—[Interruption.]. Yes.

I'm giving the Minister the opportunity to reflect on the comments made this week by the former long-serving agricultural Minister in DEFRA, George Eustice, who himself has laid into—has lain waste to—the proposals that are now coming out of the UK Government, on the back of the work that has been put in, and the work that has been put in with farmers, to actually drive greater levels of environmental stewardship. He now says that that is being thrown out of the window—thrown under the bus—by the UK Government.

I think that we can see why George Eustice is no longer the Secretary of State in DEFRA.

However, this Welsh Labour Government remains committed to upholding and keeping pace with EU environmental standards. I will resist and, where possible, prevent any changes made by the Conservatives in Westminster from undermining those standards, and that includes as they are reflected in the agricultural pollution regulations. While the committee report was published before the UK Government’s policy was announced, I am sure that the committee would agree that no undermining of EU environmental standards should be allowed in Wales.

A couple of Members raised issues around actions that farmers had already taken in relation to the new regulations. I think that it’s fair to say that some farmers have taken action already, and I think that they will have delivered benefits both for their businesses and for the environment. I think that many farmers did make efforts to do so in advance of the prospect of the 2021 regulations, because of the benefits that they could see for their business.

I very much welcome the fact that the committee and other Senedd Members will continue to take an interest in this area. I continue to believe that the best future for Welsh farming is a future in which we keep farmers on the land, supporting them to produce food in a way that is sustainable for the environment and for their business. And in the week that, for the very first time for generations, Welsh lamb is being exported to North America, we can be sure that maintaining high standards will continue to be critical to our success. Am I able to take an intervention?  

Yes.

Sorry, I just suspected that you were winding up. You haven't addressed the closed periods, which have been raised by about three or four different speakers.

I wasn't winding up, actually. I was just seeing the time. Just in relation to closed periods, if I can answer Llyr: you are quite right, it was something that I really did grapple with for a long time. One of the things that persuaded me was around the crop need and the nutrient applications that need to be made. It's really interesting that not one member, in any of their responses, mentioned crop requirements or crop needs.

So, just to make it shorter: I know that applying slurry—. The crop growth and the nutrient requirements in winter may increase due to soil temperature increases, but one of the factors for me was that sunlight hours don't change very much. So, that was the reason why I was persuaded in the end. That was one of the main reasons, but there were quite a few reasons. But it was something—you are absolutely right—that I did sort of grapple with.

In conclusion, I do remain committed to working with Members of the Senedd, and with all of our Welsh stakeholders, as we continue to bear down on the levels of agricultural pollution that present such a clear threat to the natural environment. Diolch. 

Paul Davies, Chair of the committee, to reply to the debate. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I thank Members for contributing to this debate this afternoon? There is no mistaking just how important these regulations are, and how important it is that we set the correct balance between protecting the environment and supporting our farmers to produce the food that our nation needs.

We've heard very insightful and, indeed, passionate contributions this afternoon, and I'm sure that Members will understand that I won't be able to respond to each and every one. But I am grateful to the Member for Caerphilly for raising the timescales that the Welsh has had to respond to our report, and I very much agree with him: it was important that the Government took time to consider our report in detail. The only point that I would make regarding the timescales is that the reporting deadline was breached, because the deadline was on 14 September, and the report was actually laid on 8 June. It would have been, perhaps, helpful if the Government had just kept the committee updated on when it intended to respond to the report, but I am grateful to the Minister that she has also written to me again today on that point.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (David Rees) took the Chair.

Now, Members such as the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire and the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd have raised the impact of implementing these regulations on farmers, in particular the financial costs. The committee understands that these regulations will have a huge impact on Welsh farming and that they could seriously threaten the sustainability of many farms. For that reason, we recommended that the Welsh Government set out exactly what support will be made available to farmers to meet the water quality and other various requirements of the regulations. This should, of course, include the amounts, the funding delivery mechanisms and indeed the timescales.

Members such as Jane Dodds and Llyr Gruffydd have also raised the use of technology this afternoon, and, as I said earlier, the committee received strong evidence about the use of technology to facilitate greater flexibility in when farmers could spread slurry. Now, the Minister made it very clear to the committee that the Welsh Government is open to considering alternative measures and technology, and I welcome that commitment. But I hope that, as Llyr Gruffydd said, the Government will look at technological alternatives in the near future, not just in the next few years.

More generally as a committee we look forward to receiving further information on the implementation of these regulations. We are particularly keen to learn more about the preparations for Natural Resources Wales to be in a position to adequately and fairly enforce these regulations. We’re also keen to see a detailed breakdown of support for farmers to comply with these regulations, and we’d also like to receive more information about the Welsh Government’s proposed licensing system for farms that need to use higher nitrogen. I know that the Minister said that this consultation will now take place, and I look forward to that consultation.

As I said in opening this debate, I believe stepping away from farming by calendar and introducing a technology-based approach to spreading is vital for Welsh farming. I’ve heard what the Minister has said this afternoon, but I do hope that this is a core feature of the planned review of these regulations, a review that I expect committee members will also be keen to be involved in.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I’d like to finish this debate by thanking everyone who gave evidence to the committee. The only way of ensuring these regulations strike the right balance is by rooting them in evidence, and that’s the same for the committee’s report. I believe our report and the recommendations in it are based on a high level of good quality evidence. Therefore, in closing, can I thank Members and the Minister for their contributions today, and say that the committee looks forward to being updated on the progress of the implementation of our recommendations in due course? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The proposal is to note the committee’s report. Does any Member object? I don’t see any objections. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.