The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Julie James, and amendment 2 in the name of Darren Millar.

That brings us to item 8, the Plaid Cymru debate on direct farm payments. I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move the motion.

Motion NDM6881 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the essential role that the basic payment scheme currently plays as a basis for the viability of the Welsh family farm, rural communities and the broader economy of Wales, and the importance of direct payments with regard to providing stability in periods of uncertainty.

2. Calls on the Welsh Government to ensure that support for farming in Wales is targeted at active farmers who take financial risks related to food production.

3. Calls on the Welsh Government to maintain an element of direct payments for farmers after Brexit.

Motion moved.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. It’s my pleasure to move this motion in the name of Plaid Cymru.

The Government, of course, recently published a consultation document, 'Brexit and our land’, that outlines how the Government will support land management and agriculture in the period that we are facing—the post-Brexit period. The Government’s intention is to scrap basic payments to farmers and to base their support in future on making bids to two new programmes. I would argue, as the agricultural unions have argued, that there aren't two cornerstones for any future proposal, but there should be three. Yes, productivity, which is reflected in the element of economic resilience in what the Government is proposing. Yes, environmental interests, biodiversity, flood management, and so on—these public goods that are also recognised in an element of what is proposed by Government. But that third element which is missing, of course, is an element that provides stability and assurance to Welsh farmers in such an unstable and uncertain environment, and that, of course, could be provided through a basic payment. So, in the midst of the Brexit maelstrom, at the very time that the farmers of Wales really need the stability and certainty that these basic payments provide, Labour intends to take it away from them. 

Brexit has placed agriculture on a cliff edge, and by scrapping the basic payment the Welsh Government is taking away that safety net that our family farms currently have. When the Scottish Government is committed to retaining the basic payment, when Northern Ireland is also likely to retain the basic payment, when farmers throughout the European Union will not only retain the basic payment, but will move increasingly in that direction, Wales is going in the other direction and, to all intents and purposes, is dancing to Michael Gove’s tune.

If you look at the UK Agriculture Bill, what you will have, of course, in the section for Wales is a cut and paste from the proposals that the Conservatives are bringing forward for England. That Bill, by the way, was tabled before the consultation on 'Brexit and our land' was completed. The legislation was tabled before the consultation here had been completed. What does that tell us about how meaningful that process was? 

The situation of having extreme price volatility continues to impact heavily on farm businesses. It impacts profitability, of course, but also future investment decisions, and weather events—and, you know, we've seen plenty of those with the wet winter and the dry summer this year—animal and plant disease, geopolitical strife, these are all factors that have a bearing on production costs and marketplace returns, and a stability measure of baseline support is essential to counter some of these impacts. But, of course, the Government's proposals are leaving our farmers exposed to all of these forces, without the protection being afforded to our competitors, some of whom are within the UK and, of course, others across the EU. As I said, Welsh farmers are standing on a Brexit cliff edge and the Welsh Government is taking away the safety net that we have beneath them.

As well as removing that safety net, under the Welsh Government's proposals, funding will be open to all land managers, rather than applying just to active farmers. This will siphon investment away from farming families, and that money we know, when it's invested, every pound generates a return of £7 for the wider rural economy, but now, of course, we could see banking institutions, pension funds and inactive farmers who make no contribution to the local economy or the local community benefiting from Labour's proposals. Plaid Cymru believes that any new system post Brexit should direct support to active farmers, rather than rewarding land ownership itself. [Interruption.] Very briefly, then, please. I'm happy to take the intervention.

Thank you for taking the intervention. In terms of defining active farmers, are we talking about the people who currently own land but it's actually farmed actively by the tenants?

Well, in essence, it's the people taking the financial risk; it's the people in the front line who are doing the farming and not people being rewarded just because they happen to own that land.

My concerns as well around the way the Welsh Government has presided over this process were heightened during the budget scrutiny that we had with the Cabinet Secretary a few weeks ago. I asked whether there were budget allocations for the modelling that we're constantly told will happen to show that this is a valid approach. 'Not specifically', was the answer, and I'm reading from the transcript here. I asked then about whether the piloting that's required will be funded from the budget. Well, 'We haven't got any specified' budget, and I quote,

'so we will need to find that money',

I was told then. The Cabinet Secretary added:

'There is obviously some scope within our current budget...but I don't know how much we are going to need'.

Where's the plan? Where's the plan? I mean, where's your organised and planned approach to what is going to be the biggest change in agricultural support since the second world war? And you don't know.

But you do know, of course, that we need the modelling. Your predecessor undertook extensive modelling before we started discussing options, so that that discussion came from an informed position. We know that we need the piloting—you've said it yourself—for this never-before-tried approach. And the advisory service needs to be ramped up substantially in order to support those who might be struggling with this transition. And whether the Government has the capacity to manage and deliver change of this scale and this magnitude remains to be seen. Do you have enough civil servants to process what could be tens of thousands of applications for these schemes? No wonder you picked a start date a year down the line, because, clearly, there are so many questions that remain to be answered. So, any confidence that the farming community had in your Government's proposals and in your handling of this process have been ebbing away week after week after week, throughout the consultation period, since the consultation period, and it was clear for all to see and to hear at the winter show this week.

So, the time has come for this Government to face the reality and to acknowledge that it needs now to take a step back and to look again at including a basic payment as part of its proposals for any future scheme. We can all here today start by supporting Plaid Cymru's motion.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs to formally move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James. 

Amendment 1—Julie James

Delete all and replace with:

1. Notes the UK’s decision to leave the EU in March 2019, including the Common Agricultural Policy and its system of farm support including the basic payment scheme.

2. Supports the Welsh Government’s:

a. pledge to continue to support farmers to keep them on the land and protect our communities;

b. aim to design the best system for farm support in Wales, set out in the recent consultation on Brexit and our Land, including investment for food production and support for public goods; and

c. guarantee that no changes to income support will take place without further consultation, no new schemes will be designed without a proper impact assessment, and no old schemes will be removed before new schemes are ready.

3. Calls on the UK government to provide urgent confirmation that Wales will not lose a penny of funding for farming as a result of exiting the EU.

4. Welcome the Welsh Government’s decision to maintain the basic payment scheme in 2020 as part of a multi-year transition.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally.

I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Andrew R.T. Davies. 

Amendment 2—Darren Millar

Add as new points at end of motion:

Recognises that under the Common Agricultural Policy, and during the course of the UK’s membership of the European Union, the number of farmers and the productivity of farms has decreased in Wales.

Calls on the Welsh Government to use the new powers coming from the UK's departure from the EU to create a farming and rural support scheme which serves the unique needs of the rural and agricultural economy in Wales.

Amendment 2 moved.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate and formally move the amendment in the name of Darren Millar.

I think one thing we could do by starting this debate is thank the many thousands of farmers the length and breadth of Wales for the tremendous job that they do in looking after the countryside, whether that's on the mountain, whether it's on the lowland, or everything in between. Because Wales is renowned for its natural environment, and we have much to praise and sing about, to say what a positive contribution the tens of thousands of farmers have made over recent decades. That was evident to everyone at the Royal Welsh winter fair, and indeed the Royal Welsh summer show, where the greatness of the food and agri sector is on display for all to see. We're talking of an industry in Wales that supports a £7 billion turnover and tens of thousands of jobs. But one thing that cannot be underestimated is that, despite the money that has come in from the common agricultural policy, there has been a diminishing number of people being able to make a sustainable living off the land, and an increasing reliance on the volume of money that goes from CAP just to keep businesses afloat—80, 90 per cent of returns show that that is the turnover of many agricultural businesses the length and breadth of Wales. When it comes to the processing sector here in Wales, regrettably, much of the primary produce that we produce on our land actually ends up going over into other parts of the United Kingdom, or indeed over to Europe. Surely, if we are to retain value and drive up wealth here in Wales, this opportunity to devise a new system of support, a new system of efficiency within the sector, has to be grasped with both arms so that we can create an industry that does allow young people to come into the industry. At the moment, the average age of a farmer is 62 here in Wales, and increasingly we're seeing fewer and fewer opportunities for young farmers to come into the industry, despite—Llyr and I were in a question and answer session on Monday, and the back of the room was packed out with young faces, boys and girls, looking to create an opportunity in this great primary industry that has served our country so well. But we cannot turn our back on the opportunity to craft something that is distinctive here in Wales, that above all does offer the core support that the rural economy and the wider rural economy require by that support going into agriculture. My biggest worry when it comes to the 'Brexit and our land' consultation is that, actually, when the Minister or Cabinet Secretary in that consultation refers to 'land managers', we are fundamentally changing the equation in the way that that money will be distributed to recipients who traditionally have not received money out of the rural development fund, or indeed direct support to agriculture, and, above all, organisations that don't necessarily need the support that that money would offer them to actually undertake the projects that would be available under various Government schemes.

As the opener in the debate today touched upon, the lack of modelling around many of the proposals in 'Brexit and our land' is a deep concern, because, surely, to actually put proposals into a document to be considered, we do have to understand whether those proposals would fly, and whether they would be able to be implemented in a relatively short period of time. When you look at some of the proposals in there, you're actually looking at going from a recipient base of about 16,000 recipients to potentially 40,000 or 45,000 recipients. That is a hell of a diminishing pool of resource that's going to spread far further amongst people who, as I said, traditionally have not accessed that scheme, and, above all, maybe be able to deliver many of the projects that they've historically delivered without that support. And so, I do think that the Cabinet Secretary does, when she's considering her consultation responses—and I presume that consideration will limit her response this afternoon, because it is right that, obviously, the 12,000 people who have engaged in this exercise have all put their various ideas on the table—give full consideration to those proposals. But we can rally around what we believe are the core principles of the rural economy, and one of the core principles of the rural economy is a vibrant and diverse agricultural sector, promoting young people coming into the industry, providing that primary product of food and conservation. Because conservation is a really important consideration when we're looking at what our land can achieve here in Wales. And I do believe that instead of looking at this, as the opener of the debate talked about, as a cliff edge to walk off, it is an opportunity, a door to walk through, that, as the amendment talks of, does introduce greater productivity into the industry, does reverse the decline in the number of active farmers within Wales and, above all, re-energises a sector that is desperately in need of a rebalancing of the way it attracts greater returns from the marketplace and more of the return of the marketplace is returned to the farm gate, rather than left in the hands of the processors and retailers.

And so, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate this afternoon. I hope that the amendment does find support, because I think it complements the motion that is before us. I look forward to the Chamber supporting the amendment. 

Well, I'm going to satisfy Andrew R.T. Davies by saying that we will support the motion and the amendments. And I agree with everything that's been said by Llyr Gruffydd and also by Andrew R.T. Davies.

I've always seen Brexit as an opportunity for Welsh agriculture. There is a challenge, obviously—any major change of this kind is bound to be a challenge, but looking at the medium to the long term, I think that Welsh farming can benefit very significantly from Brexit, because it does enable us to put together our own tailor-made policy for Wales. And Wales is very different from other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly from England, in the farming sector, and I've pointed out previously in questions to the agriculture Secretary—whatever she's now called—that the common agricultural policy means more to farmers in Wales than it does in England, because it can make up to 80 per cent of farm incomes in Wales, whereas the average in England is only 55 per cent. And 85 per cent of farm subsidies that are currently paid in Wales are under pillar 1 rather than pillar 2, so that proves the importance of the question of stability to which Llyr Gruffydd referred in his opening speech. Given that the basic payment scheme is so overwhelmingly important to Welsh farmers, moving from reliance upon that to some other policy should take us, I think, a considerable period of time. If you've got 85 per cent of your money being spent at the moment in the form of a basic payment, I wonder about some of the schemes that the Cabinet Secretary has in mind—what they might contain to replace it. There is no doubt that there's a great deal of uncertainty in the farming sector that's created by the Government's announcement on top of the Brexit shambles, which has been created by Theresa May. Given that—[Interruption.] I had no hand in Theresa May's decisions whatsoever, unfortunately, otherwise we wouldn't, perhaps, now be having so many debates. I've been perfectly consistent in my view since I joined the Anti-Common Market League in 1967. So, this is something that has been a thread that has gone throughout my entire life.

But to return to the motion, this is particularly important—the stability for those who farm in less favoured areas, and 80 per cent of the uplands of Wales are less favoured areas, and 84 per cent of those holdings depend upon cattle and sheep, and that is essential to preserve the landscape and to promote biodiversity. So, I can see that the resilience schemes and the public goods schemes can march together in this area, but the sums of money that are involved for each individual farmer are significant and the schemes need to be well designed.

So, I think the Cabinet Secretary is moving in the right direction, but I'm concerned about the speed with which this is going to be implemented. Generally speaking, basic payment schemes feed through into land values rather than into farm incomes. That is a major flaw in them, so I think it is right to move away from basic payments. But where you've got upland farms and others that are marginal and can never be made properly commercial without some kind of public support, I do believe we need to have some specific scheme designed to meet their needs. Otherwise, we do risk not just businesses going out of production but also the environmental consequences that would flow from that, which would be disastrous. Wilding on the hills I think is a major problem that we need to reverse. Anything that might inadvertently contribute to greater wilding on the hills I think is to be opposed. 

Farmers work very hard for very little return in terms of income. I think the average farm income is about £23,000 a year. So, the basic payment is an absolutely vital element in keeping people on the land producing food and all the other consequences that flow from that. So, I would just plead with the Cabinet Secretary not to move too fast in the direction of basic payment support and moving to more environmentally based schemes, although I do think that she's moving in the right direction. What we have to do also, of course, is to take advantage of the opportunities that Brexit brings. If there is no deal, or, more correctly, if we leave the EU on World Trade Organization terms, there are going to be massive tariffs on trade between Britain and the EU. And given that we're only about two thirds self-sufficient in food production in the United Kingdom, this is a massive opportunity for import substitution, and that's good news I think for British farmers and for Welsh farmers in particular.

There is no doubt that the agricultural industry and family farms face the greatest challenge in at least a generation due to Brexit and the uncertainty that it brings. I don't think you would have found many people at the winter fair earlier this week who were seeing this as the opportunity that some Members in this Chamber would like us to see, though one must of course remain optimistic. 

It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of the importance of the farming sector to Wales. It underpins a food and drink supply chain worth over £6 billion. It employs 17 per cent of the national workforce, 220,000 people all told, with 58,000 working full or part-time on farm holdings, making agriculture a much more important part of the Welsh economy than it is in the economy of England. Farmers manage 80 per cent of the land in Wales, including 600,000 hectares of environmentally designated areas. Farming businesses play a crucial role in providing public access to the countryside in Wales, with 16,000 miles of footpaths, 3,000 miles of bridleways and 460,000 acres of open access land—all farmed.

Thirty-three per cent of the population of Wales lives in our rural communities, and crucially almost 30 per cent of the people employed in agriculture are Welsh speakers, the highest proportion, far and away, of any industry in our country. Agriculture provides the bedrock of the economy for a large proportion of the communities where Welsh is still a natural community language. The consequences of getting our post-Brexit support for farming—if we do end up with a post Brexit, and I live in hope—the consequences of getting that support wrong could be grave. We are of course not disputing in this part of the Chamber the benefits of using some of the support paid to farming businesses to deliver specific direct public goods, including environmental goods, animal welfare, access benefits—I'd also urge that those benefits should include looking, of course, at that support for Welsh as a community language and how important agriculture is in that regard. 

There are opportunities to be provided and welcomed from the economic resilience scheme, but we do not believe that, at this time of grave uncertainty, it is right to remove the safety net from farming families. We need a secure network of family farms to deliver the public goods that the Welsh Government says that it wants to see, and that we all want to see. We need a secure network of family farms to provide a basis for a secure and prosperous rural economy across Wales, and we need a secure network of family farms to help ensure a future for Welsh as a community language. 

Of course, the consultation is now closed and the Minister and her officials will be looking at the results, and this is an opportunity for the Cabinet Secretary to reflect and potentially to reconsider. I know that she was at the winter fair on Monday, and she will have heard, as did Llyr Gruffydd and I, the scale of the anxiety being expressed by people from rural communities across Wales—that anxiety, of course, compounded by short-term problems to do with the very difficult climatic conditions we've had, as Llyr Gruffydd mentioned. We urge the Cabinet Secretary today to really think about that anxiety, to think about what it is doing to family farms, to think about the level of concern and to agree, when she responds to the consultation, to retain an element of basic payment in any future farm support scheme.

Agriculture in Wales is not like agriculture in England. Our farms are much more important to our economy and to our communities. The Scottish and Northern Irish Governments have accepted this, and that of course is why they retain an element of basic payment in their support for their farming industries. And, of course, their farming industries are much more like the farming industrial pattern here in Wales: small family farms. We don't have many oversubsidised barley barons here in Wales, and they don't have them in Scotland and Northern Ireland either.

Our industry is much more like the industry of those two countries than it is the industry in England. I still don't understand why the current proposed support scheme for Wales is basically a cut and paste from the English scheme. I've known the Cabinet Secretary for many years, and I can't imagine there are many things upon which she agrees with Michael Gove, so why on earth does she agree with Michael Gove about this? A bit of consistency is required here. The farming industries in England and Wales are so different. 

Llywydd, there is nothing wrong with changing one's mind in the face of the evidence or changing one's mind in the face of meaningful and valid representations. I really hope that the Cabinet Secretary will listen to the voices of rural communities—it doesn't matter, Llywydd, whether she listens to us, but it does matter whether she listens to them and those speaking for them—and to look to Scotland or Northern Ireland if she needs a model; we would like to see a made-in-Wales model, of course. And we urge her to provide our farmers with a bit more security going forward in the form of basic payments. This is really an opportunity for her to do the right thing. 

It is clear that the common agricultural policy is responsible for 80 per cent of farm incomes in Wales, and £274 million a year in direct payments, so it is hugely important to get the succession and the transition right after Brexit, and that is why the Welsh Government has repeatedly petitioned the UK Government to match current levels of EU funding. That is what the 'leave' campaign promised, after all, including MPs who now sit in the Cabinet, or is that another promise that got lost at the depot? But let's park that bus for now, because this debate is about where and how, and to what extent, that money should be spent post Brexit.

It's clear to me that the guiding principles must be that public money must deliver public good. And it's equally clear to me that the current system could do better to achieve that test as far as the environmental goods are concerned. For example, in 2016, the 'State of Nature 2016' report showed that 52 per cent of monitored farmland species have declined since the 1970s, that soil quality across all habitats, apart from woodland, has deteriorated, and 63 per cent of all freshwater bodies are not achieving 'good' status. And, last year, we saw record levels of pollution, and I've raised that in this Chamber time and time again, that we're seeing increasing levels of ammonia from agriculture, and that is affecting air quality. 

Now, I want to be clear here, because I'm not suggesting for one single moment that all farmers are polluters, but there are issues in the farming practices and the money that is being received compounding this. So, the fact is that the CAP has created an inherently unfair system that does benefit one group of land managers and excludes others. Even within food production, there are blatant anomalies, and horticulture is ineligible for support, and that's just one example. So, what we want to see moving forward is that we reverse some of the figures that I have just quoted, that we do equally support and we are mindful to support the needs of the smallholding, which have been mentioned here repeatedly, that we do prevent intensive farming, because that could be a consequence of a changing system, and that we do protect the needs of the hill farms, and I agree with a lot that's been said here this morning.

So, I do ask the Cabinet Secretary if the Welsh Government will pursue proposals for a new land management programme in that vein. And I hope that we can have some agreement that the system should be open to all land managers but that there is a clear system underneath that that does achieve the aims that are hoped for. I do recognise what has been said here this afternoon, of course, that we don't dilute what could potentially be a shrinking pot so that we don't end up having the outcomes that we are hoping for. And, ultimately, one of those outcomes will be the need to produce food efficiently but at the same time we do need to develop new income streams that protect and maintain our natural heritage.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. The UK will leave the common agricultural policy when we leave the EU, and I have been clear on many occasions before, during and since our 'Brexit and our land' consultation, as has the First Minister, that the basic payment scheme is not the right way to support farmers after Brexit. It is a period of great uncertainty, and we all agree that Welsh farmers need support to respond to the challenges of Brexit. This is the only way to keep farmers on the land and protect our communities. Direct payments are too blunt a tool to develop a productive and competitive agriculture sector. They do not incentivise improvements in productivity, nor do they allow farmers the flexibility to respond to volatility. There is no link whatsoever between BPS and productivity, farmers' effort or on-the-ground outcomes. We must support farmers in a better way.

The problems experienced by farmers this year as a result of the wet winter and dry, hot summer demonstrate a lack of resilience across the industry and the need for more targeted support than the BPS can provide. During the summer, the farming unions had to turn once more to Welsh Government for additional support for their members. The BPS is simply not adequately addressing volatility in the way some commentators would have us believe. This is why we are proposing transition to more targeted schemes, with two distinct schemes outlined in our consultation. The proposed schemes will provide a meaningful income stream for delivering public goods, environmental goods that will never go away, and they will provide targeted investment to drive improvements in productivity and flexibility, making farm businesses more resilient. Crucially, this will help farmers adapt their business to cope with a range of potential trading environments in a way direct payments would not, and I can assure Members that the 12,000 responses we have received are currently being analysed in great detail.

Those who seek to take the easy option and merely promote the status quo overlook the fact that Welsh farmers rely on taxpayers' support for an average of 81 per cent of their farm business income. I and many farmers I talk to want to be much more ambitious than slavishly ploughing on with an approach that clearly has not worked. And Neil Hamilton in his contribution—apart from the irony that he completely missed—seems to think that this is an achievement. Well, I don't, and the farmers who I talk to agree with me.

We will not be supporting the original motion. Turning to the amendments, I support the Conservatives' amendment. Scheme design will reflect the unique context in Wales. Proposed schemes will help the Welsh farming sector grow stronger, become more sustainable and increase public goods for all the citizens of Wales. In the original motion, I note Plaid Cymru's reference to active farmers, and I absolutely want funding to go to people actively delivering the outcomes we seek. BPS is not linked to these outcomes, productivity or their effort, as I've said, and I don't see how we can agree that this is fair to active farmers. And I do not think we should be putting the current active farmer test on a pedestal. We need to do much better, and we want a system where the people who do the work and take the risk get the benefit. In the consultation, I invited views on action to ensure tenants can access new schemes, and I'm committed to continuing to explore how to support all Welsh farmers.

I want to take this opportunity to reiterate that changes to payments will not be implemented without further consultation and old schemes will not be removed until new schemes are ready. And, as part of this commitment I announced on Monday, BPS will remain unchanged in 2020, providing farmers with some certainty in an uncertain time. To assist with the proposed transition to more targeted schemes, it's my intention to extend many existing Glastir contracts for a limited period, subject to agreement by the European Commission. This approach will maintain environmental outcomes during the interim period and deliver a seamless transition between the existing agri-environment schemes and the public goods schemes of the future. Following this, I propose a phased multi-year transition, ensuring farmers have enough time to adapt to the new approach. This will help farmers prepare their businesses to thrive in a post-Brexit trading environment.

If I could just pick up a couple of comments made by Members, just to say to Llyr Huws Gruffydd— he knows very well that we will be having our own Welsh agricultural policy. However, in order to pay basic payment schemes, before we have that piece of legislation, I need those temporary powers from the UK Agriculture Bill. You knew that very well. So, that was one of the reasons that we had to look at transitionary powers. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to pay farmers anything. 

Andrew R.T. Davies talked about young people, and I think, if you look back over the last two and a half years, I've done a great deal of work with young people. I'm meeting NFU's Next Generation tomorrow again. If you look at the schemes I've brought in, I've had a specific—. I've made it my priority around encouraging young people into agriculture. 

Helen Mary Jones, I certainly don't agree with everything Michael Gove does, and, if you look, this is not a cut and paste. Our scheme has far more emphasis on food production, for instance, than England. So, I know Brexit brings great ambiguity. It does allow us to develop a bespoke support system to harness the value of Welsh land and achieve a prosperous, resilient agriculture sector in Wales, which I'm sure we all want to see. Diolch. 

Llyr Gruffydd to reply to the debate. 

Diolch. Time is short, so I'll just pick up on one or two points made. You talk, Cabinet Secretary, of the lack of resilience to the weather. There may be something in that; there's always room for improvement. But, of course, the nature of farming means that you're always susceptible to weather events no matter how resilient your business is. Is that measuring stick one that you use in relation to the homes and the businesses that were flooded following storm Callum as well, because they're not as resilient, maybe, as they could be? If you could devise a way of making controlling the weather a public good, then I'd be with you all the way in terms of funding some of these schemes, and, of course, climate change will make these weather events even more extreme. So, are you raising the bar year after year after year? So, you know, I think we can throw these lines out, but, really, they have to be much more meaningful than that, I believe.

In terms of the amendments, very, very briefly, we won't be supporting the Government's amendment, because, clearly, it deletes our whole motion, which isn't the approach I usually support in terms of Plaid Cymru motions. You have announced, of course, a year's delay in introducing the changes, but, of course, you haven't announced a change in direction. So, as far as I'm concerned, as welcome as the delay is, I would much rather that you take the step back and reconsider your approach, as I suggested in my opening remarks. 

And, as for the Conservative amendment, you seem to be blaming a lot on CAP. Clearly, CAP isn't perfect, but I wouldn't like to imagine what the situation would be without CAP, where more than half our businesses have depended upon it. And there seems to be a suggestion that the world will be much better off following Brexit. Now, I know your view, of course, around that, and all of the analysis—[Interruption.] No. No, I won't, I've only got two minutes. All the analysis that I've seen from the London School of Economics yesterday and the Treasury today suggests that we're very much going to be worse off as a result of Brexit. 

I will conclude just by referring to and thanking Helen Mary Jones for her contribution. She’s quite right in saying that we need a stable network of family farms in order to deliver the economic, environmental, social, cultural and linguistic outputs that we all want to see, but we therefore need an element of basic payment in order to maintain that stability, and I would urge everyone here today to support the Plaid Cymru motion.

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.