when, to all intents and purposes, you have given up that control to decisions taken, first of all, by the Government in Westminster, and, secondly, which are led by the Westminster Government, and not through the process that we've been discussing here and that is set out in the climate change committee's report—of collaboration, as members of equal status, between the two Governments. So, may I ask you some questions about how exactly this is going to work in practice?

You have set out your five principles in this statement and in the statement that you made in March also. Have you discussed those five principles with George Eustice and Michael Gove? Have you been given assurances by them that you will be able to operate on the basis of these principles here in Wales, given that the legislative precedent includes either an agriculture Bill in Westminster or a specifically Welsh Bill here? As we now know, the Westminster Government has the upper hand in areas as varied as GMOs, organic farming, farm payments, public procurement—which is so important for the future of food in Wales—and also food labelling. What assurances have you been given by the Westminster Government that they will not insist on their approaches to these problems, rather than listening to the consultation on the bottom-up approach that you have described to us here today?

In talking of the funds that will emerge from Brexit, I note—and it's already been mentioned—that you have only given a pledge until the end of the 2019 financial year. Now, the Treasury has made it clear that the total will still be available until 2022. When the climate change and rural affairs committee visited London last week, we met face to face with Michael Gove and spent an hour with George Eustice, and of course we discussed with them the need to secure this funding. It was clear to me that they would maintain the funding up until 2022, but after that, it goes into the comprehensive spending review. So, the nature of it will change after that, but until then, Wales will continue to receive the same funds. So, why can't you pledge today that that will be allocated in full, at least until the next Assembly elections, rather than on a year-by-year basis, as you have set out this afternoon?

In discussing that funding, it is clear that you want to retain some sort of sense of pillar 1 and pillar 2: the difference between public good and economic payments. But, at the same time, you say in your statement that the current single farm payment isn't an effective way of providing that economic support. Now, the climate change and rural affairs committee report has made a recommendation—which you should respond to, at least, this afternoon—that there shouldn't be a pillar 1 and pillar 2 approach, but that the funding source should be merged until you measure the public good and the economic benefits, and working towards something of a higher value. You just mentioned a project in Pennal and other projects in Wales. So, why haven't you considered that recommendation? Why do you want to maintain this rather artificial distinction between pillar 1 and pillar 2 in this new approach to funding in Wales?

So, although we welcome the fact that you are discussing these issues publicly in Wales, and that there will be an opportunity now for farmers and the unions and everyone who is interested to participate in this conversation, Plaid Cymru remains of the view that we have seen powers lost over the past fortnight, and that some of the things that you are talking about in this statement will be almost impossible to deliver because it won't be the Westminster Government's aspiration to see them brought about. And it's not just Plaid Cymru that is saying that. I now see today that former MPs Gwynoro Jones and Elystan Morgan have joined with us in their criticism of the inter-governmental agreement reached. There are some warm words in today's statement, but I fear that it will be empty rhetoric at the end of the day.