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.