Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd.

Diolch, Llywydd. When your predecessor, Cabinet Secretary, proposed changes to agricultural funding in Wales, the Government published detailed assessments and extensive modelling of the impact that the proposed changes would have on each farm type, on each agricultural sector, even the impact on jobs in all the local authority areas that we have here in Wales. Now, given that your latest proposals in 'Brexit and our land' could lead to the biggest—or will, undoubtedly, lead to the biggest—shake-up in farm support in Wales for generations, can you tell us what analysis and what impact assessments you've carried out so that your view can be as informed as possible, but also that those responding to the consultation can do so in a thorough and robust manner?

So, the Member will be aware that, at the moment, we are out to consultation, and that is absolutely where we are. I've made it very clear that nothing has been decided in relation to the make-up of the schemes. We have said direct payments will be going. But the modelling that I think you will want to see will be on the future policy. So, as we're consulting on the high-level nature of that policy first, I don't want any prejudgments of any consultation exercise. We've got detailed modelling of what Brexit could mean to the agricultural sector, but we haven't done detailed modelling on the points that you've just made.

Well, I think people will be very disturbed by the fact that the Government clearly hasn't done its homework, because you are pursuing particular proposals, albeit in consultation form. So, how can you put those forward without knowing what the implications will be? How can you expect people to respond meaningfully to a consultation when, actually, you're not able to tell them what effect, if any, those changes will have on their businesses, on rural communities and farming families the length and breadth of Wales? And it's been said, of course, and you've alluded to this now, that Brexit could lead to cataclysmic effects in terms of agriculture here in Wales, and introducing the changes that you propose to introduce at the same time could well make things worse, but, 'We don't know yet because we haven't done our homework.'

Now, people are telling me that the proposals, particularly in relation to doing away with basic payments to farmers, could do to our rural communities what Margaret Thatcher did to industrial communities in Wales. We've heard about the Highland Clearances in Scotland; well, if we are looking at family farms going out of business, then it will be the upland clearances of Wales. We're standing on the edge of a cliff, Cabinet Secretary, and in taking away basic payments, you're taking away the safety net that Welsh farmers have. And, I have to say, it must be a very lonely place for you at the moment, Cabinet Secretary, because it's only you and Michael Gove who are pursuing this policy. We know that our principal competitors in the European Union will continue to take over 70 per cent of common agricultural policy support as direct payments. The Scottish Government is maintaining basic payments. Northern Ireland will do so as well. Even Labour's shadow DEFRA Secretary, Sue Hayman, has announced that Labour in England would maintain basic farm payments. Are you seriously still going to pursue this coalition between the Welsh Labour Government and the UK Tory Government even when it contradicts your own party policy?

Well, you've made some very generalised statements there. First of all, yes, I am going to pursue it. That's the first thing. The second thing is that this is Welsh Labour policy. In relation to what you're saying about Sue Hayman, I know of the comments that she made at the NFU fringe meeting in the party conference. I've seen her speech. I've spoken to her on several occasions. She believes her comments have been misinterpreted by—. It was an NFU Cymru fringe event. I understand that she will be writing to the president of NFU Cymru to make sure that her comments are understood.

I think that most people I speak to would agree that BPS payments have not done enough to improve farm productivity. You say that people are disturbed. This paper, 'Brexit and our land', came out of the Brexit round-table. You will have heard me refer to the stakeholder group many times in this Chamber and in committees. The farming unions both said to me that there were no surprises in that document because they had been part of those discussions for over two years since we had the vote. You say that it's a lonely place. Believe me, I have worked very hard for the stakeholders to bring that document forward, and it is a consultation. I want to make that vey clear, and it's still open to 30 October, and I look forward to receiving people's views.

I'm not doubting when you tell us that your policy is Welsh Labour policy, but I'm telling you that it's also UK Tory policy, which clearly is rather uncomfortable for you and your backbench Members, I'm sure. Now, as well as removing the safety net that I have referred to for Welsh farmers in these turbulent times of Brexit, under your proposals, of course, funding will now become—or is proposed to be—open to all land managers, rather than applying just to active farmers. Now this, of course, will siphon investment away from farming families when we know that every pound that's invested in a farm generates £7 to the rural economy. We could now see, under your proposals, banking institutions, pension funds and other inactive farmers—who make no contribution, frankly, to the local economy or community—benefit from Labour's proposals and the Tory UK proposals as well. Now, Plaid Cymru believes that any new system post Brexit must direct support to active farmers, rather than rewarding land ownership in itself. So, will you reconsider this proposal and ensure that support to Welsh farming is targeted at those active farmers, who are the ones who are taking the financial risk associated with producing our food?

The Member seems very keen to tie two together—the Welsh proposals and the UK Government proposals. If you look really hard, you will see that there are many differences—food production, for a start. We've put food production at the heart of the economic resilience scheme. I absolutely want to keep active farmers on the land. I've made that very clear. You ask whether I will reconsider. It's out to consultation. We've already had, I think, about 3,000 responses up to last week. I'm very competitive. I want to see more responses than DEFRA had, pro rata. So, I really want to encourage people to put their views forward. But, the whole point of this exercise is to keep our farmers farming. We need them to do that, and that's what will happen with our policy.

The Conservative spokesperson, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's great when you go second and two of your three questions have already been asked. [Laughter.]

If I could ask you, Cabinet Secretary: as I understand it, at the start of this process, the department took legal opinion as to whether the proposals in the consultation on the reform of the common agricultural policy and payments to farmers in Wales met World Trade Organization conditions. Can you confirm that that opinion was given to the Government, and are you happy that the opinion that was offered to you, if it was given, does make these proposals compliant with WTO rules?

Yes. I certainly questioned officials to make sure that all legal aspects had been covered. 

Yes, but does that mean that, obviously, opinion has been sought and that they are compliant with the WTO rules? Thank you for indicating that, Cabinet Secretary.

On the economic impact assessments, which I think the previous speaker raised, it is really important that, given that those impact assessments have not been done, as you pointed out, there is a clear understanding form the industry and participants in this process that there is a timeline when those assessments will be made. What timeline can you give us today? I think most people would have liked some sort of understanding that these impact assessments had been done already on the various proposals, because that modelling would greatly influence some of the decisions that needed to be taken. But, in the absence of those assessments being done, what timeline are you working to to have those assessments done, undertaken, given the very tight timeline you have imposed on the transition with reforming these policies?

We have committed to doing, obviously, full impact assessments, and, again, working with the stakeholders on the round table, they're very aware of that. So, the consultation closes on 30 October. We will then have to assess the responses we've had in. I've made it very clear that we will be consulting again in the spring on the proposals that come forward from the consultation, so I would say if—by the end of November, when there is the winter fair, for instance, I would hope to be able to be in a position by the end of November to make a bit more of a timeline that is firm, if you like, for when these proposals come forward. But as I say, we've said the spring, we will consult again in the spring, so it will be between those times. But I do hope to be able to be more specific, probably around the end of November.

I'm grateful for that indication, because it is critical that we do understand when this will be done. As I said, those impact assessments are vital to understanding the various modelling that is currently being undertaken. But what we do know under the current proposals, obviously—'land managers' are not necessarily active farmers. Now, I personally support the point that it should be an active farmer who should be in receipt of this money, and I declare an interest as a partner in a family farming business. However, your proposals, if they're taken through to their ultimate conclusion, will see a huge increase in the number of participants who could potentially benefit from this money that is supposed to support the rural economy. I believe, at the moment, it's about 17,000 to 18,000 people who are in receipt under the basic payment scheme. Potentially, you could be talking 40,000 to 45,000 applicants being dealt with by the department. What preparation are you putting in place as a department to deal with the uptake of the schemes? Because we all remember what happened back in 2005-06, when the intervention board as was, or the Rural Payments Agency in Reading, struggled to come to terms with the new system that the UK Government introduced back in 2005-06 that led to massive delays and huge financial pressures on rural businesses. What capacity building have you in the department, and what confidence can you give us that you will be able to deal with such a massive uptake in numbers that the department will have to deal with?

I think, at the current time, it's about 16,000 people who are in receipt of direct payments. You'll be aware of Rural Payments Wales's excellent performance; we're the best in the UK. I think about 95 per cent of payments went out on 1 December. So, I'm using that group or that team of people within my portfolio, obviously, when we have the schemes in place. There's a huge amount of work to be done before that, but I am confident we do have the capacity.

UKIP spokesperson, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I've complimented the Cabinet Secretary many times on her open-minded approach to her job and her determination to rely upon evidence as the foundation of the policies of the Government. Does the Minister therefore accept my disappointment that this approach has been rejected by her in relation to shooting on public land, and the reversal of Natural Resources Wales's policy adopted in July? Does she not realise the damage that this approach is going to do in the countryside, particularly if it's followed elsewhere?

No, I do not accept that. As we made clear last week in answer to a topical question, this was a policy matter. NRW made it clear from the outset they were expecting a steer from Welsh Government in terms of the ethical and wider policy considerations. I put that forward and I'm pleased that the Welsh Government's views on pheasant shooting and associated activities on public land were considered by Natural Resources Wales.

I think the public at large will regard that as a laughable explanation of the decision because, although it's correct that you said last week:

'the Welsh Government's position is a matter for NRW's ongoing consideration and did not bind them to accept and follow our position', the acting chairman of NRW, Dr Madeleine Havard, said Welsh Government had 'given a clear steer' on the direction for NRW to take. There's no reason for them to do a somersault other than to obey your diktat. So, I think most people out of doors will regard that response as wholly disingenuous.

I think most people in Wales and public opinion would say, actually, they support the end of leasing on the Welsh Government estate. I'd suggest that the Member is out of touch with public opinion, and out of touch with the policy. To refer back to the claims in terms of the impact on the economy, the figures being quoted are for all shooting enterprises across Wales, not just on the Welsh Government-owned estate. This makes up just 1 per cent of shooting enterprises in Wales.

If, as the Minister says, shooting is unethical on public land, it must surely be unethical on private land as well. So, it's quite clear what the direction of Welsh Government policy is here, and all anglers, all shooters, anybody in country sports generally, now can regard the Welsh Government as their determined enemy. This is the thin end of the wedge; they are all in the Welsh Government's sights.

[Inaudible.]—Nonsense.

I think the Member just answered my question for me. I absolutely, wholeheartedly reject that. I think you're just trying to jump on the bandwagon and whipping up a storm. What a private landowner does on their land is for them to decide, but when it comes to the Welsh Government estate, which is managed for all the people of Wales, for the people of Wales, then the Welsh Government will make a decision on that.