Llywydd, I’m glad to be called, perhaps a little later than I might have expected. I was beginning to think you were confusing me with Gareth Bennett, but there it is.

I agree with most of the—[Interruption.] It was supposed to be a joke.

I agree with most of what has been said in this debate so far. I do take the point that David Melding raised about the length of this plan, but for a politician to complain about prolixity, of course, is like sailors complaining about the sea—it’s just a fact of life. But I do think that this is an innovation, and one that is to be warmly welcomed; the first plan that seeks to integrate all the competing interests that are concerned by what happens in and around our coasts.

One interesting fact that I gleaned from my skimming of the document is that Welsh seas cover 15,000 square kilometres, and the interesting point is that that’s 43 per cent of the area of Wales. What we often think of as Wales is governed by the shape of the coastline, but, actually, Wales is far more than what is on land, and it’s right therefore to start this by reflecting that very important fact. I welcome, therefore, the length of the report, in a sense, because it seeks to give a comprehensive overview of the different interests that need to be reconciled, one with another.

I certainly do welcome the emphasis on blue growth, because the revival of our coastal areas—and Mid and West Wales, of course, covers more coastline than any other region does—is a very important need for the immediate future in my view, and that’s one reason why I think Brexit gives us an opportunity that otherwise wouldn’t be there, because when we’ve got control of our own fisheries and marine policy, we will be able to take decisions that are more honed to the interests of Wales than is currently possible.

But there are, of course, competing interests as well that we need to take into account. The economic development of our coastal areas is of uppermost concern in my mind, but I do accept the need to be sensitive to the wildlife needs of the environment, and I’ve had meetings with the Marine Conservation Society, and I see that Clare Reed says that

‘We are concerned that the current inclusions of strategic resource areas—mapped areas for growth of marine industry—may have significant negative consequences for marine wildlife and the habitats on which they depend.’

I don’t see that that necessarily may be a bad thing. I think one can have economic growth without having an adverse impact on the sea. One of the problems with the common fisheries policy, years ago certainly, was that it turned into an ecological disaster because of overfishing. That’s not a problem around our coasts, of course, because most of the extraction of marine species from the sea tends to be shellfish—about two thirds, I think, of the value of what is fished from the sea is in the form of shellfish. I’m sure we can do a lot more to expand the industry, and we can do that without in any way impacting adversely on the environment.

One of my main concerns, of course, is the impact of windfarms on our coastline, and that’s not just because of the visibility of these intrusions, as I see them, around our coastlines, wrecking coastal views, but also the threat to wildlife that that contains. I know that the British Trust for Ornithology has recently published a report that says that 99 per cent of seabirds avoid windfarms, but there is certainly a lack of data that is reliable in this area, and more work needs to be done to establish what the true position is. Because, of course, if seabirds are macerated in windmills, the bodies are not there to be examined, because of the operation of the sea. So, I think we must certainly be sensitive to the interests of seabirds as well as, as many see it, the interests of renewables. I've often made the point that, because our contribution to carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom is but a minute portion of total global emissions, and therefore Wales's is even more insignificant, this is not something that we need to worry about too much even if you accept the theories of man-made global warming. But I do think, therefore, that the interests of wildlife and nature do need to have a higher priority than they have had hitherto.

I do welcome the approach that the Cabinet Secretary brings to this area. I've said before that I think that she is genuine in her desire to listen to all sides of arguments in relation to the countryside and the seas, and I do hope, therefore, that she will provide us with a plan that we can measure results against for the revival of our coastal communities and our seaports in particular.