Can I just say that we are content to note the report, and we do hope it starts a process of policy development that protects our designated landscapes while seeing their wider economic, cultural and social potential being extended? I think that’s an appropriate way to go forward.

The report sets out a new proposition for designated landscapes to go beyond their current purposes of conservation and amenity, but it does this, as we’ve heard, without any restatement of the Sandford principle, unlike the Marsden report, and this has turned out to be quite controversial. Indeed, in its vision statement, the report does not mention conservation at all and, again, I think although some may say we’ve moved on to wider, more inclusive concepts and vocabulary, I still think conservation is an important one. As it states its current vision,

‘Wales as a nation values its landscapes for what they provide for the people of Wales and elsewhere. The designated landscapes of Wales deliver both within and beyond their boundaries to enhance their social, economic, environmental and cultural resources; delivering the maximum well-being benefits for present and future generations whilst enhancing the very qualities that make them both distinctive and cherished.’

Now, you can infer conservation from that, I do accept, but I do think it would have settled the nerve of many people in this time of change if we’d actually mentioned conservation directly. The report quickly goes on to draw on what it considers to be the crux of the Marsden report, namely, and I quote again,

‘to “promote” the current National Park duty to have regard for the socio-economic well-being of the area into one of its purposes, and to apply these same purposes to AONBs.’

While there’s nothing wrong with this approach, it needs to be balanced, in my view, by the Sandford principle, and a clear expression of the value of conservation. Now, I did hear what the Minister said in her opening address to us in this debate, and she did refer to Sandford and even invent or describe something that she wants to call ‘Sandford plus, plus’. I don’t have great problems with you extending the range of things that are now expressed as being within the purview of the purposes, but, at the minute, conservation is the primary purpose. That is what the Sandford principle means. You do have to ask yourself when there’s a clash with one of the other purposes—often there isn’t a clash, but when there is, conservation has primacy in governance, and you do have to ask yourself—‘What’s the point of designating landscapes if that conservation principle isn’t at their heart?’ They would be just like every other landscape otherwise, which would gain extensive protection from legislation, I grant you, but to make them special areas, I think, does imply that we think this concept is very important and conservation is at its heart.

I don’t think there’s a great problem with achieving the balance that the Government and the report—and I do thank Dafydd Elis-Thomas for producing this work with his group. The concepts of green growth and the circular economy, as well as building on very useful legislative foundations like the environment Act and the well-being of future generations Act, I think, will lead us to a general consensus, but it isn’t there yet and I think Simon is quite right in pointing that out. And we’ve all received extensive representations. We’re at the start of this debate, I realise that, but I think it’s important that the Welsh Government does identify the need to make a clear statement. Sandford has been the cornerstone since the 1970s and I think you need to make your view very clear on that. I think conservation is at the heart of these areas being highly popular tourist destinations, as well as recreational areas of outstanding popularity, with three quarters of us visiting a national park at least once a year.

Can I just conclude by talking about governance participation and accountability? I’m pleased that these issues are being addressed because it is necessary and I refer also to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the principles for effective governance that have been produced. These principles look at dialogue, voice, participation and consensus-seeking as important and I do believe that they need to be at the heart of some of the developments. My one criticism so far of these reports is that that call for voice, dialogue, et cetera, has not really looked enough at local communities and citizens. It rather looks at organisations and layers of Government and I do think we need to look at communities and their citizens.

Can I say that whilst we’ll support the motion, we do also support the two amendments? If there is any legislative change, then I think it does need to come through primary legislation. I was pleased to hear the Minister’s reassurance on that. But, of course, what is a major legislative change does itself need to be pinned down and I wouldn’t like to see smaller changes amounting to a big change, but then being conducted via or achieved through secondary legislation. I do think it needs to come back here if there is a major shift in policy for primary law making. Thank you.