I’m very grateful to Huw Irranca-Davies for that contribution. You mentioned at the beginning funding being promised, and I mentioned that some ‘leave’ campaigners did give assurances—and I mentioned two of those who are now in very senior and relevant levels in the UK Government. I recognised, during the campaign, that it was a campaign and that I wasn’t speaking for any Government on the matter. I sought to be careful in what I said in light of that. I think other ‘leave’ campaigners may also have considered that. But I remember—and I see Andrew R.T. Davies here, and I think there were a number of exchanges with the First Minister in the run-up to that referendum, where he was pressed to give assurances as to the continuation of funding.

I also remember other occasions. I shall not name the Member, but a particular Member on the Government side, when I was debating in front of farmers, was suggesting to the farmers that they should vote ‘remain’ because, if they didn’t, their funding could be at risk, and they shouldn’t assume that agriculture and rural development would be at the top of the list of priorities for a Welsh Government with a lot of other pressures on its time, and perhaps not traditionally so much support in that community. But what I want to do today, with this statement, is to draw Members from all parties together behind what I think is a common objective. I think we’re in a political fight for this. I think we can achieve this. But I think if we work together—yes, to hold ‘leave’ campaigners in Government to specific assurances given, but also to explain the unique rural economy that we have in Wales—and I mentioned the linguistic element, which I think is probably not something many policy makers in London will give great consideration or even necessarily be aware of when these matters cross their desks. If we were to go from the EU level of finance to a Barnettised level of finance, the impact on those communities in terms of the likely depopulation and change to the landscape and breaking up of cultural, social and linguistic communities that that would lead to would really be very, very severe. I feel that strongly, as I know do many Members in this Chamber, whichever side of the debate they were on at the referendum.

The Member also mentioned wanting legislation made in Wales. I agree with his sentiments but he, as I, will be aware of the sheer complexity of the legislative base. I’ve heard it suggested that there are something like 5,000 legal instruments affecting the CAP. This Assembly and the Welsh Government will have many different calls on their time, as does our committee, and I think that the challenge is to find what are the essential elements, and we’re trying to identify key principles that we want to particularly apply in Wales. I think we need, as a committee and as an Assembly, to focus our time on those areas where we can really make a difference if we seek to change the legislative framework or adjust it in any way from that which has grown up within the CAP. Yes, the Welsh Government should have control of that money, but I do think that a statement as to continuing that level of support for these areas would assist us in making arguments to UK Ministers and others to keep that funding. The Member also mentioned that, I think, his constituency has 40 per cent upland hill farming. When we talk about more marginal farms, yes, that includes the uplands. But, particularly in areas such as his, but also across much of south-east Wales, there’s not necessarily a division between lowland and upland farming. There are many farms that will have part of the farm in the valley and part further up. I agree with him in terms of what he says about biodiversity and sustainability. It’s very important that we all focus on those, and there are times when there are hard trade-offs in terms of money and other objectives, but he is right to keep those areas at the forefront of our minds.