We now move to questions from the party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer; I've had my reincarnation as rural affairs spokesperson. [Laughter.]

I'd like to ask you, Cabinet Secretary, in light of the consultation that you launched yesterday—the very important consultation that you launched yesterday—what is your definition of a 'land manager'? One of the five principles that you've underlined is that, under any new schemes that might be coming forward from the Welsh Government, they need to be accessible to all. So, it's important to understand what the criteria would be to make that accessible. So, what is a land manager in your eyes?

I'd like to welcome Andrew R.T. Davies to his new position. I very much look forward to you shadowing me. You always describe yourself as 19 stone of prime Welsh beef, so I'm sure we'll have some fun alongside that too. So, welcome to your portfolio. 

How do I define a land manager? I would say farmers and foresters, but, of course, the majority of our land managers in Wales are farmers. 

I'm grateful for that interpretation, although, certainly, reading the consultation and reading some press speculation, it did seem as if the definition was slightly wider than that, and the interpretation could be given that large companies, for example, that might have land holdings—Tata Steel for example, or local authorities that might be looking to look after parklands or verges or whatever—that meet the environmental goals might well be able to access some of this funding that historically, under the common agricultural policy, has always been available to someone with a holding number or customer reference number. So, I'd be grateful if you could enlarge on that interpretation of who you think is a land manager. Would such public bodies, as I've just outlined, or private companies be eligible for a slice of this money that the Welsh Government would be making available, because, if so, that would be a complete change in direction from what the common agricultural policy historically has delivered back to Welsh agriculture? 

Well, perhaps, I can give you a little piece of advice as you start your new role, and that's not to believe everything you read in the press. I think that's the first thing to say.

In relation to the definition of a land manager, as I say, the majority of our land managers in Wales are farmers and have always been. I don't think it's a huge change of direction. You'll be aware of the two schemes that we're bringing forward: the economic resilience scheme and the public goods scheme. Now, what we're consulting on is the make-up of those schemes and how those schemes can ensure that we deliver our objectives in relation to the five principles that I set back in February for our sector. So, the consultation is there. I've heard in the press that we'll be funding allotments. We won't be funding allotments. So, I think it is important that we have clarification around the consultation, and I would again urge as many people as possible to bring forward their views. 

I'm grateful for that explanation, and maybe I can give a bit of advice back to the Cabinet Secretary: actually, I took it from a one-on-one interview that was in Wales Farmer yesterday, in which you gave a series of answers, so they were your answers that I was deducing my questions from. Clearly, they did leave the door open to interpretation of what a land manager was and actually who would be eligible for this funding. I appreciate the consultation is out there and there's much work to be done on that consultation, but there are some grey areas. You've clarified it to a point, about allotments, for example, and I presume that that would feed through into public bodies or private companies as well, as I cited, that wouldn't be eligible.

But one thing that, obviously, the consultation doesn't touch on is volatility in the marketplace. It talks of public goods and it talks about the environment, it does. As we're going through a heatwave at the moment, if you've got a farmer producing crops and producing livestock from the land in Wales, that volatility in the weather and the conditions is something that you can't mitigate. Any business plan you draw up cannot take that into account. What weight will you be giving to the volatility, to the very delicate environment that farmers and land managers work in, that no business plan can take account of? Is this an omission from the consultation and you'll be looking at it during further opportunities, or, under the two headings you've got, you've got volatility in there and it's just difficult at the moment to find it? 

In relation to volatility, obviously we work very closely with the UK Government and the other devolved administrations around that. I think you make a very pertinent point—we haven't seen this sort of weather for over 30, 40 years. So, I think it is important to make sure that we help businesses in relation to their business plans around volatility.

Just going back to the previous question on the public goods scheme, I recognise that so many of our farmers bring forward public goods at the moment that they don't get paid for and I think that's wrong. We put a huge amount of value on our public goods in Wales and I want to make sure that that is recognised, going forward with the schemes. 

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Simon Thomas.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, Jeremy Corbyn believes that a basic income is a very good idea. Can you explain why you don't think it's a good idea for Welsh farmers? 

I presume you're referring to the basic payments scheme and direct payments. I don't believe the common agricultural policy has delivered the outcomes that we think we can get more out of and that are of such huge importance here in Wales. 

Well, I thank you for that reply, and you're right that I am referring to the break of the link between what you could describe as a basic income and a move—significant shift—to outcomes based on public goods, as you've just described it, which is Treasury language to justify some of this. I understand that, and I think there's a lot in your consultation paper that is to be worked with and the grain of which I accept. But in breaking the link between the land that a farmer is responsible for, and the family farm in particular in Wales, you are also breaking the link between wholesome, sustainable food production and the ongoing support of payments. And I wonder whether you still believe such food production is in itself a public good or merely the associated environmental benefits, which you've just described. 

Food production is vitally important and I refer to the five principles and about delivering on the objectives of the five principles, and food production is one of them, and I was absolutely determined that it would be one of them, but it's not a public good. Food is not a public good. It has a market and so it cannot be a public good. So, what I suppose we're doing is creating a market, if you like, for public goods, but food is not a public good.

I think that the way you produce food is a public good and I think that sustainable and wholesome food is something that we should be trying to achieve for the wider benefit of the environment, our public health and everything else, so I would certainly want and urge people to respond to your consultation in making that strong link.

What we don't want to see, and I'm sure you'd agree, is the end of the family farm in Wales, the end of farmers who are responsible and stewards of the land that they either own or have tenanted—because it's increasingly also a tenanted landscape that we see. And we wouldn't want the end of that and then the replacement of family farms by employed land managers or people who are wardens or anything else. The key to maintaining your safe environment is that long-term investment, that long-term resilience, and a family farm and a farmer, himself or herself, at the heart of it.

But, as you have suggested that a greater number of people will be able to fish in this declining pond, can you also reply as to how we will ensure that this will be a long-term and sustainable construct under your consultation? At the moment, the common agricultural policy is seven years; though there are changes, they are often gradual, and farmers, particularly if we're moving towards public goods, will need to demonstrate things like carbon capture or flood prevention not over one year or two years, but over a long period of time. So, are you taking fully into account the need for multi-annual frameworks and investment in your land management policies?

I want to start by saying that I don't want to see the loss of any small family farms—I don't want to see the loss of one farm. However, we have to recognise that Brexit brings immense challenges for the sector and that's why we need to do all we can to support them. They are custodians of our land and that's the message that—. Funnily enough, I've just done an interview now, ahead of the Royal Welsh Show, and I was asked if my perceptions had changed and I said that the one thing I hadn't realised was how much farmers take pride in their land and making sure that they just look after it for the period of time that they do and to make sure it's there for future generations. When I was out in New Zealand in April, the one lesson I came back with, after what happened to them back in 1984 with that cliff edge, was that they lost so many small farms, and I'm determined that that won't happen post Brexit here in Wales.

This is part of the consultation—you're quite right that they are a long-term sector and they need that multi-year security. And that will form part of the consultation around the two schemes that we've got, and also I've made it very clear—and I hope that's come out in the consultation launch—that we will have this transition period, because basic payments will continue in 2018 and 2019 and then, from 2020, we will start the new scheme. But there has to be a multi-year transition period: you can't expect to go from basic payment straight to the new scheme. So, I'll use Rural Payments Wales, which you'll know is very successful—we're the best in the UK—and I will use that group to make sure that we get the scheme correct from the beginning.

UKIP spokesperson, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I've had a great deal of contact recently with animal welfare campaigners who are concerned about pre-stunning of animals and ritual slaughter, in particular. And they've pointed out to me that non-stun slaughter has now been banned in Denmark, Iceland, Sweden and New Zealand, that the British Veterinary Association have said that pre-stunning is superior from a welfare point of view, and that recent methodological developments in electroencephalograms allow the experience of pain to be assessed more directly than ever before, and, in relation to calves that are slaughtered by ventral neck incision, it's apparently now quite clear that this could be perceived as painful in the period between the incision and the loss of consciousness. So, in these circumstances, will the Cabinet Secretary look again—in line with the BVA's viewpoint and the RSPCA's, and many other organisations involved in animal welfare, that the only way to adhere to the highest standards of animal welfare in Welsh slaughterhouses is to ensure that all animals are stunned before slaughter for whatever reason?

This is certainly a discussion I had with the British Veterinary Association just a couple of weeks ago, and I've asked officials to look at the information they've brought forward for me in detail.

Good. Well, I'm grateful for that reply, which I regard as very positive. In the event that the Cabinet Secretary decides not to change the law in this respect, will she consider an alternative proposition, which also comes from the BVA? They say that they recognise that, whilst pre-stunning is superior from a welfare point of view, should non-stun slaughter continue to be permitted, post-cut stunning offers a valid means of reducing the suffering of animals at slaughter. And post-cut stunning, I think, would meet most of the objections from religious groups.

Well, as I say, I'm waiting for officials to come back with advice for me following the initial discussion I've had with the BVA, so, you know, I'm not going to make policy up on the hoof now, but it's obviously an ongoing process for me.

Making policy on the hoof would not be appropriate, even for an agriculture spokesman, I'm sure. As the Cabinet Secretary will know, there has been a huge increase in the growth of the halal meat market in particular. Much of this food is not being consumed by Muslims, and it's gone into mainstream takeaways and fast food outlets as well. A lot of people have objections for whatever reason on animal welfare grounds to eating such food. Would she agree with me that it is important that people should know what they're eating and that those who are concerned about the animal welfare considerations that I've mentioned ought therefore to be able to make an informed choice in such circumstances? Will she commit to prioritising greater consumer awareness on religious slaughter and non-stun slaughter, not just through labelling products in supermarkets but also in restaurants and takeaways?

I absolutely agree—it's very important that people know what they're eating, and I think that, certainly amongst restaurants, that consumer awareness is not out there. I was in a restaurant where I noticed, when I came out, that there was a very small sign at the bottom of the door that said that all meat was halal. Now, I think that should be far more visible, in the way that we've done with food hygiene standards, for instance. So, I absolutely agree that it's very important that people know what they're eating.