The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Paul Davies, amendment 2 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth, and amendment 3 in the name of Julie James. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected.

We now move on to item 7, which is the United Kingdom Independence Party debate on uplands livestock, and I call on David Rowlands to move the motion. 

Motion NDM6779 Gareth Bennett

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Believes that sheep, which have previously been referred to as woolly maggots, should be returned to Welsh hillsides.

2. Regrets that the decision to remove grazing rights from the Welsh uplands has resulted in huge damage to the Welsh uplands, wildlife and general environment.

3. Calls on the Welsh Government to remove any incentives that encourage the removal of livestock from upland areas and, instead, provide incentives for those areas to be repopulated with livestock.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I start by saying that I cannot support any of the amendments tabled to this motion, firstly because each one is prefaced by that asinine proposition, 'Delete all', meaning of course that they would delete all of my submissions—a patently absurd stance? But also because none of the substitutions address the main thrust of my argument, which is the environmental impact of destocking the uplands. All amendments tabled deal exclusively with the economics of the uplands.

My debate calls upon the Welsh Government to put the woolly maggots back on our mountains. Following the decision, largely under the auspices of Elliot Morley and the now Baroness Barbara Young, to instigate a policy of removing grazing animals—sheep were referred to as 'woolly maggots'—from our hills, commonly known as wilding, we're witnessing the devastation of our upland environment and a catastrophic effect on the wildlife on our uplands. We therefore call upon the Welsh Government to remove any incentives to farmers to take their animals from the hills and put in place measures to reverse this ill-thought-out policy and thus take immediate steps to repopulate these areas.

There is a significant body of evidence that proves that this de-populating of our hillsides is having a hugely detrimental effect on wildlife species and the general environment of our mountains. The removal of livestock has been followed by the spread of pernicious bracken growth and the increased height of ungrazed heather, to the point that heather no longer affords good habitat for nesting birds whilst bracken affords little or no suitable habitat for any of our wildlife species. If we add to this the further effect of uncontrolled grass growth, we're seeing a combination of factors that are having a substantial impact on the number and the variety of species that inhabit our hillsides. The highly toxic drain-off from bracken roots is also known to have a detrimental effect on the ecology of our streams and rivers.

One further consequence of the overgrown nature of our hillsides is the propensity it affords for the spread of wildfires. Tall, often dry grasses and overgrown heather and gorse are some of the most combustible forms of vegetation. The consequence of this is that we are now witnessing a considerable rise in these devastating events. For many hundreds of years, farmers used controlled burning to manage species growth as well as creating fire breaks. We have all seen the devastating effect uncontrolled fires have and are having on our mountain habitat. Unless we have a radical rethink about upland management, then we can expect the frequency and extent of these fires to escalate. 

Due again, primarily, to a lack of grazing stock, we're witnessing an unprecedented explosion of tick species on our hills. Long grass is ideal habitat for ticks. This has resulted in a growing number of cases of Lyme disease, especially amongst the hill-walking fraternity and their pets. Lyme disease can have disastrous, debilitating effects on its victims and as there is limited knowledge of the disease amongst general practitioners—and, David, I make no particular comment as far as that's concerned—it can go undiagnosed for long periods, making its effects even more devastating. The long-term effect of this is that tourism will suffer as ramblers, et cetera, become less and less willing to expose themselves to the health risks involved with tick infestation. It is reported that in France, last year, some 60,000 people were affected by tick bites.

Last but not least, we have to acknowledge the economic effect of taking highly valuable stock off our hills. Wales, of course, has a very large number of upland areas. Consequently, the loss of revenue from hill stock is considerable. Although farmers may be individually compensated, though only in the short term of course, the country as a whole is financially disadvantaged. Hill stock contributed substantially to the Welsh agrarian economy.

There are many examples of how the so-called re-wilding of upland habitat has had a disastrous effect. English Nature and now Natural England's policy of destocking Dartmoor is proving to have a hugely negative environmental impact, with many of these consequences outlined above manifesting themselves, with disastrous results. Dartmoor commoners are now witnessing the appalling consequences of the policy of destocking carried out over the last 20 to 25 years.

Closer to home, Geraint Davies, a well-known and well-respected figure in the Welsh farming industry, who runs a large upland farm near Bala, where he and his wife have been engaged in restoring areas of the farm to make it wildlife friendly, is firmly of the opinion that the removal of stock from our hills is having a very detrimental effect on wildlife. It was Geraint who pointed out to me the possible loss to the tourist industry as hillwalkers are finding it more and more difficult to negotiate upland areas due to grass and bracken coverage.

A well-acknowledged expert in the field of upland habitat is Geoff Eyre, whose restoration work on 6,000 acres at Howden moor in the Peak district between 1989 and 2006, which consisted of spraying, managed burning, reseeding of heather and palatable grasses, together with bracken removal and a tenfold commercially viable increase in cattle and sheep, resulted in wildlife returning in quite extraordinary numbers, proving conclusively that destocking uplands is totally counter-productive in sustaining or increasing wildlife in our upland areas. Geoff has managed and restored some 40,000 hectares of upland habitat.

So, given the evidence above, there can be no plausible argument for continuing with current policy. So, I again call upon the Welsh Government to reverse its policy with regard to upland subsidies and put those woolly maggots, together with their larger bovine friends, back on our Welsh hills.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Andrew R.T. Davies.

Amendment 1—Paul Davies

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Recognises the importance of Welsh livestock in supporting the agri-food industry across Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.

2. Believes that the Welsh livestock industry is an integrated sector and that upland and lowland livestock are dependent on each other.

3. Notes the importance of upland farming to rural communities, and believes that the Welsh Government needs to prioritise the promotion of greater processing capacity in Wales in order to add value to the livestock sector.

4. Encourages the Welsh Government to work with the UK Government to secure a change in the distribution of the promotional levy income and, by doing so achieve a greater return, particularly for the Welsh sheep industry and Hybu Cig Cymru, the organisation responsible for the development, promotion and marketing of Welsh red meat.

Amendment 1 moved.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I formally move amendment 1 in the name of Paul Davies in the debate that UKIP have tabled this afternoon in relation to stocking our upland areas and the general agricultural argument about the livestock sector here in Wales.

I do regret that we are unable to support the motion because I do think it is a negative process when you are deleting motions in their entirety, but I do find that the motion that you have tabled is far too broad to find any real aspect that we could find to support a position on. In particular, there are some cases where there are worthwhile incentives put in place to remove livestock from certain areas because of sites of special scientific interest status for example, the carbon capture argument and other environmental gains that can be achieved in some of our uplands.

That's why we've put an amendment down today that looks at the overall picture of livestock farming, both in the uplands and the lowlands, because the historical livestock pattern here in Wales is one of a joined-up approach, where the uplands and the lowlands cannot be divided. I do find that, sometimes, when we debate in this Chamber, we try and divide the livestock industry into specific sectors at the expense of the other sector. There's that integration that is integral to the fabric of Welsh agriculture that we break at our peril. So, I do believe that we've got to look, when we're talking about agriculture, at the joined-up approach of upland and lowland working together to strengthen and make it more resilient, the livestock sector here in Wales, so that we can add greater value to what our livestock farms produce and, ultimately, keep more money in our rural communities and, above all, offer young people a greater chance in the agricultural community, with new openings in farms the length and breadth of Wales. It cannot be right at the moment that the average age of farmers in Wales is 61. There just is no or little opportunity for young farmers to come in to the industry, and, with Brexit, that does offer us the opportunity—as, in fairness, the Cabinet Secretary has highlighted—that we can craft policies that do drive agriculture here in Wales, that are Welsh-specific and UK-specific.

And, certainly in my new role as the agriculture and rural affairs spokesman for the Conservative benches, I very much look forward to looking at new ways of developing support for the agricultural industry by adding value to the great produce that we produce. And that's why, in point 4 of the amendment that we have before the Assembly today, we do ask and seek clarification from the Cabinet Secretary as to what progress she has been able to make on rebalancing the promotional levy. There has been an ongoing debate and discussion for quite some time, because however many numbers of livestock we have in the uplands, whether they be sheep or cattle, there is this promotional levy that is able to go back into the industry to promote and encourage greater use of Welsh produce and, at the moment, that system is generated at the point of processing, i.e. the abattoir, rather than at the point of rearing. And, so, because of the nature of the processing sector here in Wales and the limited opportunity, especially in the cattle sector, for the animals to be processed here in Wales, many of the cattle that the blood, sweat and tears of the farming community have gone into to finish for the market are processed in England and other parts of the UK and that promotional levy stays within that jurisdiction rather than here in Wales. And I do think that that is an injustice that does need to be rebalanced, and I do hope that the Minister will use the opportunity this afternoon to address it, as it's in our amendment.

The other point I would also like to make, as the amendment touches on, is on the nature of the upland communities in the way that they support the wider economy of rural Wales in particular. The tourist sector, for example—as the mover of the motion highlighted, £250 million is added to the tourist industry here in Wales by having a vibrant uplands sector that has activity at its heart and has a community that is generating wealth. And let's not forget that the livestock sector here in Wales contributes to the £6.9 billion agri-food industry that employs so many people the length and breadth of Wales. 

We have gone through 25 years of various European reforms, from the MacSherry reforms in the early 1990s, which, for the first time, moved production subsidies away from producing livestock and more into—as some Members will be familiar with—the set-aside regimes and, obviously, the environmental schemes that came forward in the 1990s and the 2000s. There is a balance to be struck, but what I would suggest to you is that farmers are the original friends of the earth campaigners, because, ultimately, they rely on their living, their livelihoods, coming from the land and they want to see a strong environment with a good agricultural outlook that brings the next generation forward.

And, as I've said, we can have the debate about the European Union and the outcome of the referendum in this Chamber time and time again, but the fact of the matter is that there is an opportunity to create a Welsh agricultural support package, a rural agricultural support package, that keeps the environment and agriculture walking in synch together and developing world-beating solutions. I hope we take those opportunities and, ultimately, deliver a future for youngsters to come into the agricultural industry and a rural economy that is vibrant, is dynamic, and does offer those opportunities, and that's why I move the amendment to the motion in the name of Paul Davies this afternoon. 

I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 2—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Believes that upland sheep farms are an important part of the Welsh economy.

2. Notes with concern the dangers posed by leaving the single market and customs union on upland sheep farms.

3. Supports remaining in the EU as a means of retaining single market status but, in the event of leaving the EU and losing single market membership, calls on the Welsh Government to provide upland sheep farms with adequate support whilst building on high animal welfare and environmental standards.

Amendment 2 moved.

Thank you, Llywydd, and may I refer Members to my register of interests, which is pertinent to this topic? May I start by regretting the language used by UKIP in their motion, as we've heard? It is an inflammatory start to a debate that many of us have been trying to encourage in a constructive and positive manner over the last few years. I think it’s entirely irresponsible to present the argument using the language that you have used. There is far more consensus and common ground between farmers and environmentalists than, clearly, you believe to be the case.

So, it’ll be no surprise to you that Plaid Cymru recommends in our amendment that we delete all of the motion. But, of course, in our amendment we do highlight the importance of upland sheep farms as a crucial part of our Welsh economy. But, of course, we also highlight the dangers of leaving the single market and the customs union, and the undoubted damage that that will do to upland farms. It’s not just sheep that will have left the uplands in years to come. As a result of Brexit, it’s possible that people will also be leaving the uplands, because of the impact that it will have on the viability of family farms in Wales. We’ve heard the stats in many debates in this Chamber: 96 per cent of Welsh lamb is exported to the European Union; talk of export tariffs that will be introduced and will have a negative impact. That is why Plaid Cymru has been clear and consistent that we want to retain our membership and status within the single market, and, indeed, the best way to do that is to remain within the European Union. But, if we are to leave and lose our membership of the single market, then, clearly, we need robust measures to safeguard the interests of agriculture in Wales, particularly our upland farms.

I'd like to say a few words now about the Welsh Government's ongoing consultation, 'Brexit and our land'. Now, the last time the Government considered major changes to farm payments in Wales, they assessed how much each business, each sector, each county in Wales would lose or gain through very comprehensive modelling before making any key decisions. Now, these latest proposed changes are some of the biggest changes that we've seen, certainly in recent years, if not probably in this generation. So, maybe the Cabinet Secretary could tell us what assessments have been made this time of how much Anglesey, Ceredigion, Carmarthenshire might gain or lose, the impact it might have on jobs in those and other counties, before pursuing further this never before tried policy, because I'm not aware that that work has been done.

We know as well that Scotland is sticking with the basic payment for their farmers. Northern Ireland is likely to do the same as well and farmers throughout the European Union, as well, will receive it. In fact, because of the financial consequences to the EU of Brexit, it seems that their pillar 2 funds will be cut and that their direct payments will be ring-fenced, so, you know, EU farmers will probably be proportionately better off because of Brexit. But the Welsh Government, of course, is going the other way and proposing to do away with basic payments. The Scottish Government's position paper, if I recall, is called, 'Stability and Simplicity'. Well, somebody suggested to me that maybe the Welsh Government proposals should be called 'instability and complexity'. You're simply following, like the proverbial sheep, the policy of Michael Gove and the Tories in England, and I really have to question the integrity of your consultation process here. I know you've claimed that what the Farmers Union of Wales have been saying are myths—well, they're not; they're valid concerns. There may be a difference of opinion, but they are valid concerns from key stakeholders. Is it right that your letter to farmers, half way through a public consultation—? Is it right that you, as a Cabinet Secretary, intervene to influence people's opinions and to dismiss what I believe are valid concerns from that key stakeholder? You say you want to hear people's views, but then you write and it seems to me that you're not willing to hear people's views unless they agree with you. And it was very telling, I have to say, that, in the statement that accompanied your open letter to farmers in Wales, you say, and I quote:

'Our new Land Management Programme will consist of two new large flexible schemes'.

It 'will consist of'. So, has the decision already been made? I thought we were in mid consultation. In fact, your amendment reflects that very same language as well. So, with your unprecedented intervention and the kind of language that we're seeing—I mean, I'm not sure whether we're in judicial review territory. That's not for me to say; that's for others to consider. But I would, Cabinet Secretary, urge you to put the brakes on your proposals, follow the example of Scotland, of Northern Ireland and the rest of the EU in offering Welsh farmers stability. At this most challenging time in our recent history, let's give our farmers at least an element of certainty of funding and let's give them at least a level playing field.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs to move formally amendment 3, tabled in the name of Julie James, and to speak—Lesley Griffiths.

Amendment 3—Julie James

Delete all and replace with

The National Assembly for Wales:

1. Believes the result of the Brexit referendum and resulting trade challenges for Welsh upland agriculture mean we must look to the future, not the past, in developing a new model of support for land managers.

2. Notes the results of various scenario planning exercises for post-Brexit agriculture in Wales, all of which predict a difficult future for sheep farming in the uplands should the UK leave the single market and customs union.

3. Supports the Welsh Government’s intention to create a programme, to include upland farmers, addressing the issues noted above with two large and flexible schemes: an Economic Resilience scheme and a Public Goods scheme.

Amendment 3 moved.

Thank you, and I formally move our amendment.

The motion tabled by UKIP regards proposals to reform agricultural support, and, more specifically, support to upland sheep farmers. As Members are aware, and it's been referred to, we're currently consulting on 'Brexit and our land'. In it, we propose measures that are very different to those in this motion. The consultation runs until 30 October and I would encourage anyone interested to respond. The document was developed following detailed discussions with members of my ministerial Brexit round-table, which included representatives from environmental NGOs and farming unions. Many of those members have told me that there were no surprises in that final document, because they'd been so involved in those discussions. The need for change is a direct result of the UK leaving the EU, and several Members in this Chamber were very keen to call for Brexit, but seem less keen to deal with the consequences and the many challenges it brings. The Welsh Government continues to push the UK Government for guarantees that funding for farming will be maintained at pre-Brexit levels, as was promised by the 'leave' campaign, and that funding will not be Barnettised. The First Minister has said this funding will be ring-fenced for agriculture.

Wales needs a future farming policy that will deal with the specific changes the sector is likely to experience following the UK's exit from the EU, particularly around trade and competitiveness. We can all agree on the need to keep Welsh farmers farming; this is the first principle of our reforms. However, the challenges Welsh agriculture will face in a post-Brexit future require a sophisticated solution that works for all farmers, not a return to failed policies of the past. Simply increasing the number of sheep on the hills will not enable farmers to thrive post Brexit. The outcomes of trade arrangements will need to be taken into account, but, of course, currently we have no idea what access to the EU market will look like.

I note Plaid Cymru's points around risks posed by leaving the single market and customs union. However, the current payment schemes will not enable farmers to mitigate those risks by adapting their businesses to the new economic environment. The basic payment scheme is the largest source of common agricultural policy funding. However, as a form of income support, it does not provide incentives for innovation, nor embed business efficiency. Over the last 10 years, with the current system of payments, productivity has declined. GVA from agriculture in Wales has declined during a period when overall Welsh GVA has increased by over 80 per cent. Over the same period, food security has reduced, and habitats and species associated with agriculture have seen a downward trend.

Will the Minister take an intervention?

Yes.

Could I just seek clarification on your GVA figure? Because there's an example the First Minister uses very often about how people work in Cardiff but live in the Valleys and so that's why the GVA looks low in the Valleys. I made the point to you about the processing sector predominantly now being in England for milk, for beef in particular, so surely that indicates that the value that we're producing here in Wales is being taken out of Wales and being attributed to England's GVA. Do you not recognise we need to do far more to develop processing here in Wales so we can retain more value here in Wales that would help those GVA figures out?

I'll address that when I continue with my comments.

We've created a sector where farm businesses rely on support payments for an average of 81 per cent of their farm business income, and this demonstrates why, as the First Minister said in his speech at the Royal Welsh Show, the status quo is not an option. BPS and agri-environment schemes have developed over the past 40 years to support farmers across the European Union. They are a blunt instrument, supporting farmers across countries with widely differing economic and environmental models. The EU's approach to audit and accounting regulations has also been one size fits all. Whatever the outcomes of the Brexit negotiations, here in Wales we plan to give farmers the freedom and flexibility to thrive, the freedom to manage their business in the way they see fit, and the flexibility to adapt their business and grasp future opportunities. Business as usual or a regression to the past will not help Welsh farmers in the long run. A more intelligent, targeted approach that helps farmers increase their productivity and competitiveness is required.

This is why we've launched proposals for a new land management programme through the 'Brexit and our land' consultation. It is made up of two schemes: one on economic resilience, and the other on public goods. Until this programme is in place, farmers will continue to receive funding through the current system. BPS will continue to be paid through 2018 and 2019. We've proposed a transition period, which will end in 2025.

Andrew R.T. Davies, in his comments, raised the issue around the red meat levy, which has been going on for many years and I know has been raised with me by many farmers over the past couple of years. I raised it again with Michael Gove at the quadrilateral meeting in London on Monday. I made it very clear to him, probably going back about a year, that I expected to see provisions in the UK Agriculture Bill. I had hoped to see it on the face of the Bill; he's now told me that's not possible. I do expect—and, again, I raised this with him on Monday—to see it as a Government amendment, because he was saying it may be raised as a backbench amendment. I don't want to see that; I want to see a Government amendment to the Bill to address this as a matter of urgency, and I will be writing to Michael Gove to ensure that that does happen.

Funding through both the economic resilience scheme and the public goods scheme will follow our five principles of land management reform. These principles set out our commitment to supporting food production, keeping land managers on the land, building a prosperous and resilient land management industry, supporting the provision of public goods, and ensuring that all land managers can access the schemes.

The economic resilience scheme will provide funding for specific measures. We will work with farmers to ensure that funding supports improvements in their business. I do, of course, recognise that this is daunting, but incentivising business improvement will produce some more positive results, and support will also be given to collaborative efforts. Measures will target the entire supply chain, including increasing processing capacity, as mentioned in the Conservative amendments. This will lower costs and increase efficiencies for farmers.

Alongside the economic resilience scheme, the public goods scheme aims to provide an additional income stream to farmers. They will be funded for outcomes for which there is no current market, such as reducing flood risk or improvements in water quality. As well as providing an income stream, this will improve the sustainability of farms, contribute to the development of a circular economy, and a reduction in external costs. These schemes offer a way for upland sheep farmers to thrive. With our support, they can diversify, invest in new technologies or equipment, and be paid for providing future and further public goods. More efficient supply chains will also contribute to increase competitiveness.

I just want to refer to the comments from Llyr. In relation to difference of opinion, I don't have a problem with difference of opinion. My concern with the Farmers Union of Wales is that they have asked all their members to just reject all our proposals—a blanket. They are then doing their members a great disservice, because it's really important that we hear their views. So, just to reject our proposals, to me, means that they won't have a say in what we're bringing forward. You're quite right that we are only consulting on those two schemes. We have said quite clearly that direct payments will stop, but it is a very meaningful consultation. This is the longest consultation I've ever had as Minister. It's 16 weeks long, and that was because I knew people would be extremely busy over the summer. So, I do want to hear as many views as possible, but I thought it was really important that we addressed the myths that were being put out there, not necessarily just by the farming unions, but—I was picking up, over the summer, at the agricultural shows—from farmers that I was referring to.

You mentioned Scotland, you mentioned Northern Ireland, and you mentioned England. We must design a uniquely Welsh policy. It's up to those three countries what they do, and that will target—[Interruption.]—I haven't got time, sorry. That will target support where it has the greatest impact by realising the full economic, social, environmental and cultural value of Welsh land.

I call on Neil Hamilton to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Well, we've had quite an interesting debate, but unfortunately it's not been about what the motion addresses, as David Rowlands pointed out in his opening speech, about the nature of the amendments that the other parties have put down. Andrew R.T. Davies tried to justify the Conservative amendment on grounds that our motion couldn't be amended to include the points that the Conservative amendment has on the order paper, but I couldn't see why not. I don't see why the UKIP motion has to be deleted to put down the very constructive points that the Conservative motion addresses, all of which I think we, in our party, could have supported. In which case, we could have had the penny and the biscuit of our motion, as well as the amendments of the Conservative Party.

How Llyr Gruffydd could think that our motion today is inflammatory is entirely beyond me. We were addressing a very specific problem of the wilding of the hills and the environmental impact of the current regime, which causes many difficulties both in land management terms and also with disease control. It's a pity that this debate has turned into yet another debate on Brexit, which, in one sense, we should be very happy about in UKIP, but we really were trying today to put down a motion that was not going to concentrate upon the merits or otherwise of leaving the EU for the agricultural sector, important, obviously, as that is as a background to everything. But I thank Andrew R.T. Davies and Llyr Gruffydd, in addition of course to the Cabinet Secretary, for their interesting contributions and I'll refer to some of the points that they made.

But, just to go back to what this debate is actually all about, the wilding of the hills of Wales, following on from the EU habitats directive, has caused a catastrophic increase in most predators, and declines towards extinction of some species, and particularly vulnerable ones. Leaving the EU does give us an opportunity to improve the environment of the uplands and gives power to this Assembly to take a very different approach to the one that has been adopted hitherto. The Cabinet Secretary did refer to the opportunities that this gives to Wales to design an agricultural policy that suits the specific climatic and topographical problems of our upland areas in particular. In the course of her speech she described the current common agricultural policy and the basic payments scheme as a very blunt instrument, and indeed it is. I fully agree with her on that. The one-size-fits-all policy for agriculture for the whole of Europe does ignore many important elements in the agricultural regime here in Wales, and I applaud her words in saying that she wants to introduce more freedoms for farmers to increase productivity and run their businesses in a more productive way. That seems to me to be a very good point to make, rather than the usual party political dogfight points about exports of lamb, and so on and so forth, and I'll deal with what Llyr Gruffydd says about that next.

Yes, of course, we know that about a third of Welsh output of lamb is exported to the EU. Two thirds is consumed within the United Kingdom, so let's keep this in perspective. The farming sector itself as a proportion of the national income is quite small. Total exports of lamb from the United Kingdom amount to about £300 million a year. We're not dealing with large figures here. Insofar as there are going to be transitional problems for sheep farmers, then they can easily be dealt with within the budgets that will become available as a result of leaving the EU because there will be a Brexit dividend, as we know. Instead of subsidising farmers in other parts of Europe, we can now subsidise farmers within the United Kingdom, and in particular within Wales, and it will be the Welsh Government that has the responsibility and the opportunity to do that. I'm amazed that they're so pessimistic and so defeatist about the opportunities for British agriculture that Brexit gives. What a pathetic spectacle to see a Welsh Government saying, 'We'd much rather that Brussels should take these decisions than we should take them ourselves'. What sort of government is it that doesn't believe in itself and its own abilities to provide best for the people of Wales, and in particular for the farmers and consumers of Wales?

So, UKIP has an optimistic view of the future, and we certainly have faith and confidence in our own country and our own ability not only to survive in the world, but also to prosper on the basis of an agricultural policy that is designed by us for us, and for our own people. If an agricultural policy is introduced, the consequences of which are failure, then we know where to look to put the finger of blame. It'll be upon those on the front bench opposite here.

So, just to return to what this debate is all about for a moment, we have seen, as David Rowlands explained, a rise in rank and unpalatable grasses infested with ticks, and, as a result of unburnt mature heather, that also becomes infested with heather beetle. Out-of-control bracken produces sterile landscapes that are both unsafe for tourists and walkers and also vectors of Lyme disease. So, these are all important points that are very important to the prosperity of the countryside in upland areas as well, as he explained, and the policy of the rewilding of the hills really goes against the whole grain of the impact and importance of agriculture in the life of any country, and in particular in the life of Wales because 84 per cent of Wales is characterised as a less favoured area. We have a much higher proportion of upland areas than other parts of the UK, and therefore to improve the quality of upland areas is not only better for farmers but also, as he pointed out, for walkers, for tourists and for all those who enjoy the countryside, as well as those who just like looking at it.

The countryside, as we know it, isn't something that is produced by nature; it's actually produced by those who manage the land and in particular by farmers who run businesses on it. So, we need to have a completely different approach to upland areas than has occurred hitherto. The habitats directive of the EU has spawned a lot of detailed legislation that has not been to the benefit of the agricultural community, or, indeed, in general to the public at large. The problems that are created by the spread of bracken and so on on the hills by people who don't really understand the need for land management, I think, are a potentially disastrous effect.

So, the consequence of the freedoms that we'll get as a result of leaving the EU can be, if those freedoms are intelligently used, an improvement in the quality of life and the quality of land for all. I can't see that there can be any downside to that. So, I invite Members of the Assembly to put aside party political considerations in this debate, to turn over a new leaf and to follow UKIP's lead in this particular respect to vote for our motion and show us some dignity and respect that, on this occasion, we are not seeking to debate in a partisan political way. This was a genuine attempt to improve the lives of the people of Wales and to bring the parties in this house together on an issue that is well able to sustain that approach. So, on that basis, I invite Members to vote for our motion and against their own amendments. 

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.