Thank you, Minister, for your statement this afternoon, and the tone of the statement in particular. I can remember responding to one of the earlier statements, which talked of 'land managers' and, sort of, erased the farming community, and I don't think that was the Minister's intention, but the language, certainly, in this afternoon's statement is far more helpful, I would suggest, to give confidence to a sector that is obviously concerned about the future, with such radical change. And, in some respects, I think you've got one of the most exciting jobs in Government, really, because you have the ability to shape a package of measures that will define the countryside and the rural economy for a generation or two and that is a huge responsibility but a huge opportunity as well. For the first time in over 45, 50 years, we will be able to tailor agricultural and rural support to the needs and demands that Wales finds as we go further into the twenty-first century, and that is a huge opportunity for us to take on board.

One thing I do think that, obviously, is regrettable is the uncertainty around the position we find ourselves in at the moment, but it is a fact that if the deal had gone through in Westminster, a lot of that uncertainty would have been erased and, obviously, it is worth noting that the farming unions were supportive of the deal that was on the table, and we could now be moving into addressing some of the concerns that you've highlighted in this statement, about modelling, which I don't think is an unfair observation to make. Given such a dramatic change in support—and the Minister touches on the modelling that she wants to undertake—could she allude to how she will be taking that forward? I appreciate that's difficult, not knowing the quantum of the money that's available, and that will rely on the comprehensive spending review, but there must be some thinking going on within the department to understand how these impacts will be assessed and how the impact assessments that you talk about will be taken forward, because it is really important in such a fundamental change to the support package that's available to agriculture that it is really understood what you propose to do.

I do think bringing the two schemes under one roof potentially is of benefit, but there's a real danger that if it isn't devised carefully and collaboratively with the sector that you will have a scheme that's trying to be all things to all people and fails to actually achieve any of the goals that you've set out. And so, again, I'd be appreciative of understanding what led to your decision making about bringing those two schemes into the one strand, which you've announced this afternoon, because in your earlier statement, you were very clear that you wanted to create these two streams and they were competing to deliver different benefits for the public good.

And the other point that you make in the statement, which is also to be welcomed this afternoon, is that important link between food and the environment. We shouldn't compete against the two. Actually, the two complement each other, and if it's done correctly, then obviously both aspects can benefit from any scheme that you bring forward. I think that's a welcome development in the thinking that you've outlined in your statement this afternoon.

I'd also like to understand that the previous First Minister, and I think I'm correct in saying the current First Minister, has indicated that any money that is allocated to rural support schemes and agricultural support will be passed to your department if it comes down from Whitehall. Is that current Government policy? I appreciate that this Government's mandate only runs until 2021. The current UK Government's commitment is until 2022, but I think that would be helpful to understand that that commitment is still live and is still active, given, obviously, the constraints that that might place if money does get creamed off into other departments.

I'd also like to understand, in the last but one paragraph, about this working group—call it what you will—that you're going to pull together to try and bring the stakeholders in on bringing the proposals into a reality from the next consultation stage. I think the words you used would be 'co-design our proposals'. Now, that sounds very good written here. You've obviously given that some thought, and I'd be really interested to understand how that co-design will bring those proposals forward because we're looking at a date of 2021 for the current scheme to come to an end and the new scheme to be taken forward. That, with the best will in the world, is only 18 months away or so. There's a lot of work for the department to undertake in that very tight time frame. So, could you give us an understanding of how this work will be undertaken, when you would hope to be in a position to bring forward proposals that will have meat on the bone, so that we can understand exactly when those proposals hit the ground that they will be viable, they will be attractive, importantly, for farmers to sign up to, and above all that they will provide that stability that you talk about in your statement, which is important for the current generation of farmers, but important for the next generation of farmers to come forward?