Item 6 on the agenda this afternoon is a statement by the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs on 'Brexit and our land'. I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Last year, the Welsh Government carried out one of its largest consultations on agriculture. I am extremely grateful to everyone who engaged in the discussion. Given the importance of farming in Wales, it is unsurprising the debate was significant. Views expressed by respondents were strong and wide-ranging. Despite this, the vast majority agreed Welsh Government should continue to support Welsh farmers and Welsh land. Today I am publishing the summary of responses to the consultation and the Welsh Government’s policy response. I have carefully considered the views expressed in the responses and have made a number of changes to the policy proposals in light of the consultation, will be explored in the forthcoming consultation in July.

EU membership means our farmers and their supply chains currently benefit from access to a large, tariff-free and frictionless market. The UK’s future trading relationships remain unclear. However, what is clear is farmers will face new challenges when operating outside the EU. Farm businesses will need to become more resilient. After Brexit, we have an opportunity to put in place a system of support designed in Wales. The starting point must be our obligations contained within the well-being of future generations Act, which places a multifaceted duty on the Welsh Government to carry out sustainable development to improve the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales. In addition, the Environment (Wales) Act introduces a further set of principles and duties designed to support the sustainable management of natural resources and biodiversity in Wales. It follows that sustainability must be at the heart of Wales’s farm support policy.

The well-being goals defined in the well-being of future generations Act are particularly relevant to farming, given its keystone role in our environment, rural economy and communities, culture and language. The basic payment scheme falls short of furthering these goals in critical respects. It is insufficient to enhance the environment, does not provide an incentive to improve and is poorly targeted. Throughout the consultation, the Welsh Government emphasised that maintaining the status quo was not an option, because the UK had decided to leave the EU and its common agricultural policy, with the direct implication that BPS in Wales will come to an end. In order to determine what should replace it, we need to reflect on our obligations and the new economic context. No decisions on future schemes will be taken without further consultation and impact assessment. This also reflects the significant and continuing uncertainty about the nature of Brexit.

However, at this stage, the Welsh Government considers that universal income support not linked to outcomes is not an effective way to support farmers. The Welsh Government therefore intends to move away from a universal income support scheme based on land under management to a new system of outcome-targeted payments, and this will be subject to further consultation in July.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

On the basis of consultation feedback, and flowing from Wales’s legislative framework, the Welsh Government proposes to pursue an objective of sustainable land management, which balances the needs of the current generation with our obligations to the next. This, of course, includes Wales’s future farmers.

Food production is a vital component of sustainable land management. A sustainable approach will make it possible to produce public goods as a consequence of producing food. Reflecting on the consultation responses, we propose to bring together the economic resilience and public goods schemes proposed in 'Brexit and our land' into a single sustainable farming scheme. A single scheme would allow us to explore economic and environmental opportunities at the same time. It helps us find win-wins—things that are good for both food and the environment. We propose that a sustainable farming scheme should provide annual payments to farmers in return for the public goods outcomes delivered on their farms. We propose that payments are targeted to specific outcomes. This could provide a powerful tool for delivering against our environmental commitments, including reversing biodiversity decline, meeting our carbon budgets and achieving our clean air targets. It is difficult to see how we can meaningfully and efficiently address these commitments without nationwide action across the 80 per cent of Welsh land managed by farmers.

Reflecting on the consultation responses, we have found the production of food and the production of public goods to be mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive. In many cases, the same action, done in the right way, can contribute both to the production of food and the production of public goods outcomes, and we want to pay for these outcomes. There are many ways a farmer can improve air quality through food production: soil management, animal husbandry and targeted nutrient application are just three possible ways. By producing food in this way, we can deliver benefits for the farmer, the environment and the wider public.

Paying for public goods outcomes delivered through appropriate farming practice would ensure that all types of farm have the potential to enter the scheme if they desire. This is vitally important, because many farmers may rely on the new scheme to make a profit, just as they do with the current BPS. In addition to the annual payments, we would propose to provide investment, advice and training to support farm business development. These measures would aim to improve the farm’s profitability. Our farmers face significant challenges and I understand the apprehension in many of the consultation responses. These revised proposals are designed to address many of the concerns raised.

Before we can proceed, a number of things need to happen. Firstly, we need an agreed budget. While the UK Government has pledged to maintain cash levels of agricultural funding until 2022, there is no certainty on what happens thereafter. We must continue to insist Wales receives its current share. This funding will determine how much we can pay farmers. Secondly, we need further consultation on our proposals to enable us to consider the practical elements of a sustainable farming scheme and ensure the administration is practical to operate. Thirdly, we need to undertake a full impact assessment. We are developing capability that, once the budget is known, will allow us to estimate the impact on different farm types across Wales.

We cannot move forward until all of this is in place. The scale of uncertainty surrounding our exit from the EU has only increased, and we cannot make decisions on the transition timetable without first knowing more. While Welsh Government can propose policy, it is only farmers who can deliver real change on our land. Therefore, I want to continue to work with farmers and stakeholders of all views on how to turn our proposals into a practical reality. Reflecting this, following the publication of the next consultation, I intend to launch a process to co-design our proposals, involving farmers and others in the design of the practical aspects, before the Welsh Government decides on the way forward.

Finally, Presiding Officer, I would like once again to express my thanks for the consultation contributions received. Future policy proposals will be better for these, and together we can work to help farmers thrive, harness the value of Welsh land, and secure a prosperous, resilient agricultural sector in Wales.

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?

Thank you, Andrew, for those questions and those comments. I absolutely agree with you: I do think I have the most exciting job in Government, and you're quite right, this is the first time in 45 years we've had the ability to be able do this, and that's why we need to get the agricultural policy and the support policy absolutely right. I won't to be rushed. I've not been as early as I would've liked to have been with this statement. I had asked for this statement to be tabled about three or four weeks ago. Then we had to, obviously, participate in the European elections, so we had the purdah period. So, this is the first time I've been able to bring it forward, which was really important because I want to bring forward the second consultation—we're calling it 'Brexit and our land 2'; that probably won't be the title in the end, but that's the working title—ahead of the Royal Welsh Show, to do the same as we did last year with 'Brexit and our land', when we had that long 16-week consultation. I propose to do the same with this second consultation, but to launch it ahead of the Royal Welsh Show and the summer agricultural shows because that's the time when I think we can all have really deep, meaningful conversations with a lot of our stakeholders. But I am very aware that we need to get this right for future generations also.

I hope it's very clear to everyone, to Members in the Chamber and to our stakeholders, that we have listened and we have taken note of the consultation responses. I wanted to make it very clear last year that it was a meaningful consultation, and I hope that is appreciated that we have changed several of the proposals. You mentioned not using the term 'land manager' any more; farmers are farmers. They told me they want to be called farmers. Some farmers want to be called food producers, some don't, but I think, generally, farmers want to be called farmers, and, obviously, there are land managers who incorporate our foresters, our contractors, and we'll use that term as well.

You asked some specific questions about the two schemes. So, what I made very clear last time was that we would be ending the basic payment scheme and we would have these two schemes and how they were made up was part of that consultation. Again, what came back was that it was thought that it would be better to have an integrated policy. I think you're quite right what you say about food production, and I said that in the statement this afternoon: they can be mutually reinforcing, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. And at the current time, farmers are producing food with those public goods but they're not being paid for the public good, and we want to turn that around and make sure they do get paid for that.

I don't think I used the term 'working group'. What I said was we want to co-design the policy going forward. And, again, the farming unions in particular and some of the environmental organisations have made it very clear they want to continue working closely with us on that. You'll be aware that straight after the referendum result three years ago I set up the ministerial Brexit stakeholder group—the roundtable group. That meets regularly. That will continue to meet. I've made it very clear to them that I still need their advice and for them to be critical friends, and they're very well up for that.

I think another area where we will want to see that co-design going forward—. I mentioned that the consultation will probably be launched at the beginning of July, and then, soon after, we need to look at how we're going to do that co-design. I'm sure you'll remember that last year we had a lot of engagement sessions with farmers and other stakeholders, where officials went in a room, were asked lots of questions, absorbed lots of comments. I don't want to see that with the second consultation; I think it will be much more of a workshop, where everybody will have to work very hard, and we'll be very interested in everybody's ideas. So, that's my kind of early thinking around that.

You asked about the timelines, so I mentioned the consultation will go out, hopefully, early July, certainly ahead of the Royal Welsh Show. It will run again for 16 weeks. I like that long consultation, particularly over the summer, so it'll probably be the end of October. We'll have started looking at the co-design during that period. Again, we had an independent organisation looking at the consultation responses from last year. I would guess that we would do the same this year, which will probably report to us in the spring of next year. So, that's the sort of timeline I'm looking at.

It's been very difficult to do an impact assessment for the reasons I outlined in the oral statement, but Members today will have seen this document, 'Agriculture in Wales'. That's the start, if you like, of the impact assessment. This is building up the capability to be able to do the modelling and the impact assessments going forward.

You asked about funding. As you know, the UK Government has said that we will have the funding until 2022. This Government said that they would ring-fence it—the previous First Minister did and the current First Minister also did in a previous capacity—and as far as I know, that has not changed, but we don't know what the budget is. At the moment, it's zero, so to ring-fence zero isn't going to be very helpful for anybody. But, realistically, we do need to ensure that we don't lose a penny. We were told that we wouldn't, as you know, and we're certainly holding them to that and to that promise.

May I thank the Minister for her statement this afternoon? Clearly, we will need to look in detail at the supplementary documents that have also been published today before we can come to a full conclusion on some of the changes that the Minister has referred to. Clearly, much of the detail will be contained within the consultation, which will appear next month, so we look forward to seeing that.

But on the face of it, I think the tone of this statement strikes a more constructive note than has been the case in the past. I refer specifically to the fact that you say that you will co-design the practical aspects of the plan. It’s a shame that we didn't have co-design of the policy from the very outset, perhaps, but the fact that that is going to happen now, I think, is a step in the right direction.

I would appreciate more clarity this afternoon from you, for example, on any commitment in terms of active farmers. There is a line in one of the supplementary documents that says that there will be more emphasis on them. And can you confirm to us that it's only active farmers that will be able to access the support that we're discussing under any new scheme? The impact this will have on tenants has also been something that’s been central to much of the responses, and there’s also a reference to that, so can you confirm this afternoon that tenants will have access to all sources of support that will be provided by this scheme?

You recognise, of course, that there is uncertainty emerging from what will happen as a result of Brexit, but you only recognise that in your statement in relation to the timetable. Now, surely, all of the confusion around Brexit undermines any work that you will do over the next few months, because until we know what the outcome of Brexit is, then we can't know, essentially, what kind of landscape or what kind of context the agricultural industry in Wales will be working within. That will make it extremely difficult to ensure that any new schemes are appropriate and do respond to the needs of the sector. So, I am concerned. You say that it’s important that we get this right, but on the other hand you say that there are so many unknowns. I do struggle to bring those two things together and to have confidence that this process will lead to an outcome that will benefit the sector in Wales, because this is a change that shouldn't be made lightly. It’s a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make these changes, as you've acknowledged, and if we get it wrong, then the upshot will be very grave indeed.

Moments ago, the First Minister told us in relation to the M4 decision, and I quote from his statement, 

'Llywydd, this decision is being made at the point of maximum uncertainty about our financial future. Unprecedented austerity in the public finances is combined with a complete lack of clarity over our...budgets for the coming years, and is exacerbated by the uncertainty surrounding Brexit.'

Now, this was one of the reasons why he's decided not to pursue the M4. Well, if it's relevant to the M4, surely it's even more relevant in relation to the impact that Brexit will have on the agricultural sector.

I've said it before and I am going to say it again: Welsh farmers need stability. They need stability, certainty and consistency, and embarking, as you propose to do, on this never-before-tried model is a huge risk. It's only you and Michael Gove now, walking off together in this direction. The Scottish Government, Northern Ireland and the 27 countries in the rest of the EU, they're all sticking, they're not twisting with the future of our family farms and the future of our rural economy. Now, I'm not opposed to change, but introducing these changes at this particular time, I think, is too much of a risk.

Can you tell us what the trading conditions will be for Welsh farmers in six months' time? I don't know what they'll be; I don't think you know what they are. Will we be facing crippling tariffs? Will we be facing huge imports of cheap food? We don't know. So, how can we design a programme without knowing some of these answers? You said it yourself—you have no idea what budget you have to work with, so how can you design a scheme without knowing the scale of budget that will be available to you? Yes, people have made promises, but some of those very same people are now being summonsed by courts to come and answer accusations of misleading people. So, I'm not taking these people on their word.

So, you don't know. And, of course, if Michael Gove doesn't like your proposals, or at least if you can't agree a consensus with him on WTO obligations, then he can pull the plug and he can block any proposals that you wish to make. So, with all of this uncertainty and instability, I have to say, Minister, that removing the element of a basic payment basically means that you're pushing Welsh agriculture blindfolded off a cliff. That is my concern, and that is the reality that we're facing here.

Yes, we need to get it right, so why plough on before we know what Brexit looks like? The nature of Brexit surely should influence the nature of the support that the sector gets in any future scheme. How can you undertake any meaningful impact assessments and modelling when you can't answer any of those questions that I posed to you a moment ago? All of these goalposts will move in six months' time, and quite possibly move again after that. The stakes are too high to work blind on this. Wrong decisions will cost livelihoods, will cost in terms of the social cost, in terms of the economic cost, and ultimately losing people on the land will have that environmental impact that will take you further away from where you want to get to and not achieve some of the goals that we all aspire to in this Assembly.

Diolch, Llyr. I should probably say, to prepare everybody, that the consultation that we'll be bringing forward in July—you said you're looking forward to getting it—is going to be very detailed. It's probably going to be twice the size of 'Brexit and our land', so just a little bit of a health warning there, because it is going to be so detailed.

I think I've always co-designed. The whole point of having the Brexit round-table was to do that, and certainly the 'Brexit and our land' consultation that we brought forward last year—. I think most people who sit on that stakeholder group said they could see the result of our discussions in that document. So, I think I've always been very keen to co-design, but certainly, from the discussions I've had with the farming unions and other stakeholders, they are so keen to work with us. As I say, I'm very grateful for the responses that we've had, and certainly the help that they're giving us to do that. So, I set out in my answer to Andrew R.T. Davies the timeline that we're looking at to do that.

You mentioned two very pertinent words—active farmers. That came out very clearly in the conversation and the consultation responses that we've had. It is about land use; it's not about land owned, and I can absolutely confirm that that's what we're looking to do. Because that's not what the basic payment scheme did. So, in setting up the new scheme and the new support policy, that has to be at the heart of it.

You specifically mentioned tenant farmers, and I'm particularly interested in tenant farmers. I've gone out of my way to visit many tenant farmers in the three years that I've been in post. I passionately believe that they should not be disadvantaged in accessing schemes because they don't own the land that they farm, and the responses, I think, to 'Brexit and our land' absolutely echoed that view. You may be aware that we've got a consultation out at the current time around tenancy reform. That closes on 2 July, and that consultation contains proposals to enable tenant farmers to be able to access new agriculture and land management schemes. So, I'll have the consultation responses from that consultation as well as the forthcoming consultation, because I think both of the responses will need to be considered in the round, going forward.

You talk about the uncertainty of Brexit, and I was saying to officials this morning that everything that could go against us has seemed to go against us since we had the 'Brexit and our land' consultation. The consultation that I'm bringing forward in July won't finish till the end of October. Hopefully by then we will be a lot clearer. But we can't just sit and do nothing and wait. We know that we're coming out of Europe and we know we have to have that policy. You referred to the UK Government and us being hand in hand walking off. If you look, the Scottish Government—. It's only a transitional arrangement. Northern Ireland haven't been able to form a policy, obviously, because they don't have any Ministers at the moment. If you look at the 27 countries you referred to staying in CAP, CAP is going to go through reform. And if you look at the way it appears to be going, what we've done around sustainable management, public goods, improving water quality, that's all part of the CAP reform. So, I don't think what we're doing will be out of step in the way that you suggest. Only—I say 'only'—63 per cent of farmers access the basic payment scheme. It could be that not everybody will want to be part of this scheme. It is a voluntary scheme, obviously, but I think it is important that we get it right.

You're right—we can't—. I will hold them to their promise, but it's very difficult to believe everything that you hear. However, I can't imagine a time when the UK Government would not want to support farmers and they would not want that funding to come to us so that we can decide how to use that for the good of our own Welsh farmers.

Thank you very much for your statement, Minister. We can all agree that this is a very difficult time for farmers, just as it is for all businesses, but I'm surprised that Llyr Griffiths is demanding stability, consistency, and continuity. I just think that is impossible to deliver in the context of the UKCCC 'Net Zero' report, demanding that we go for a 95 per cent reduction in our emissions. We absolutely have to see everything in the context of the climate emergency that we've declared.

I agree that it's extremely difficult to know about our relationship with Europe and it's impossible to second-guess what's going to happen next, but I think you're right in your statement to say that it's prudent to plan for the challenges of operating outside the EU, whether we're in it or not, because we want our farmers to be ambitious and to be exporting to the rest of the world as well as producing more fresh produce for the people of Wales. So, that's the way that I interpreted that, and I think that's a very sound basis.

In terms of the sustainable development that we are going to need to have moving forward, I support your outcome-targeted payments because there's no point on the one hand paying people for economic resilience and then having to pay them with the other to rectify the environmental damage they might have done with the public goods scheme. So, I think bringing them together is an excellent idea, and I support that completely.

Obviously, my recent focus has been on trying to improve the amount of fresh food coming into schools, because if we really want to deliver on the healthy eating programme, we need to be able to source vegetables and fruit locally. We can't do that if we haven't got the farmers to produce the goods to enable us to do that. I do recall the Gareth Wyn Jones programme on the television where he struggled to source food locally when he was trying to produce a meal for children in Canton. So, I'd really like to know what our strategy is on increasing the amount of horticulture in Wales, which has been a neglected area, because horticulture normally takes place on small parcels of land, which haven't been eligible for the CAP programme, which requires you to have, I think, at least 8 hectares. Obviously, you can have a very successful business on less than 8 hectares.

Now, looking at whether we have the horticulturists we need to be able to support our farmers to develop in new areas, given that the lamb meat industry might become a very poor prospect in the future if things go badly wrong with Brexit, I'm concerned to see that StatsWales tells us that only 45 horticulture apprenticeships were started in 2015-16, 40 in 2016-17, 40 in 2017-18, and so far this year—because the year runs up to 31 July—only 30. And the average age of horticulturists is 55, which is even older than the average age of farmers, generally. So, I just wondered how the Welsh Government, within the framework of the new plans that you have for a sustainable development in agriculture, is going to be able to encourage more people to produce for their local markets, not just for export, given that the export market is a lot more uncertain. 

Thank you. Jenny Rathbone raises a very important point. I was reading the other day that UK home production in vegetables contributed 73 per cent of total supply in 1995, and it's now dropped to around 54 per cent. So, you can see there is a real opportunity there, and certainly we want every type of farmer to be able to access the scheme. So, if we've got a horticultural farmer who wishes to join, that's excellent. Also, if we've got a livestock farmer who wants support to get into horticulture, that's also to be welcomed. We would support both of those. 

Obviously, the decline I mentioned in the UK production has increased our reliance on imports. You will have heard me and the First Minister say that if we have a 'no deal', one of the things that will be affected is fresh produce, we think, coming in from Europe. So, I think there is a real opportunity there, and, again, I think procurement is an area where we can really ensure that our public services are using Welsh products. The Welsh horticultural sector only represents about 0.1 per cent of the utilised agricultural area, so there is huge capacity for an increase there. We've certainly helped support the sector.

You mentioned the apprenticeships, and the number has dropped. I'll certainly have a discussion with Kirsty Williams in relation to that. But, also, one of the things we have been doing is we've been improving our agricultural land classification mapping capability, so people will know where the best area is for certain produce and crops. So, I'm hoping that will also help perhaps a livestock farmer if he does want to enhance his produce in that way for horticulture.

We've also got Farming Connect, which you're aware of, and that also promotes viable diversification activities to existing growers. So, it's certainly something that I would welcome growth in.

I welcome the statement here today. There are a few things—. I'm trying to pick out things that others haven't said. I think we all recognise that there are going to be new challenges. We don't know what they are—nobody here does know what they are—but we all do recognise that money will be a key aspect in delivering anything, whatever that might look like.

We also know that there are changes that are happening that we can't control, that the weather patterns are changing somewhat dramatically right across the world, not just here. So, the climate change is happening and what we might be able to use our land for will equally change also. I think the other thing that is happening is people's diet is changing, and what they are choosing to eat isn't necessarily any longer the red meat that we are producing. So, whilst we need to look at that going forward, I would ask that we examine what we currently do with our land, particularly within agriculture, because I notice that one of the key areas that you intend to support is improving productivity. I would like to understand exactly what that means, because if we're talking about producing more red meat, more dairy, which means intensive farming, then that's also going to take up more land. And as I've just said, we've got weather patterns changing, and already this year we've seen some struggles in terms of feeding that increased livestock. So, we are putting, or we could put, undue pressure on the land that we have if we don't think about those aspects.

It is also of course about land use, not just farming. So, I want to bring the debate into other areas, and particularly when we're looking at flood risk management. I'm really pleased to see that that is mentioned here, and I look forward to seeing more detail around that. But I think, again, you know, it does say 'our land', so if we're talking about flood prevention, it can't just be agricultural land, it has to be land use absolutely. So, that has to be avoiding, when we're building housing estates—. It has to be the case that that is land use. Before we put a house on any land, it would have been a green space. It would have absorbed and kept all the water in situ. And we can't carry on just putting that down through drainage. And I know that we've got sustainable drainage systems.

So, I'm looking forward to seeing the next stages, but I'm simply trying to widen it. And so when we're talking about land use, you won't be surprised that I'm really pleased to see that nitrate vulnerable zones are in here, because the way that we use the land, or the way that we abuse using the land, will eventually find its way into the rivers. We have seen this week—just this week—dead fish floating, yet again, along the rivers where I live. Now, that's the evidence that we can see. What we can't see is they're absolutely destroying the river underneath. If the fish are dying, everything else is dying as well. So, again, I'm going to link that up with intensive farming. I want to be mindful that we're not moving along in a situation where (a) we're using up untold land to produce red meat that fewer people want, but we're also producing more slurry and we're not, it seems, in some cases, being careful about handling that or inspecting the way that it's handled, so it's actually polluting the river.

Thank you, Joyce Watson, for those comments and questions. I have not met a farmer who doesn't take his or her environmental responsibilities very seriously. Just this week, NFU Cymru are holding a conference, which unfortunately I can't attend, to focus on the environment. And, certainly, NFU announced that they wanted to be carbon neutral by 2040, and I think our beautiful landscapes are because of farming. However, we do have an issue with agricultural pollution, which, again, farmers accept they have their part to play in that, and you'll be aware the new regulations are coming in in 2020.

I think the point you made about flood risk is really important and, again, I'd like to see fewer concrete flood schemes and the use of our natural resources, and I think that is something that we can certainly look at. Woodland, too—obviously that's a very good use of land. And whilst tree planting will be a voluntary element of any scheme, I think, again, planting trees will have economic benefits for some farms. That would give improved shelter, for instance. Certainly it could give biosecurity barriers to improve livestock production. So, I think looking at how we can make them more productive and resilient is part of the scheme. You only have to look at last year and the weather that we had last year. We had that very wet spring, heavy snow at times, we had a long, hot summer, we had storms in the autumn and we've had a mild winter. So, you can see why we need to help farm businesses be resilient, and, clearly, the basic payment scheme didn't do that and we've got to make sure this scheme is absolutely right. 

You mentioned SuDS, and I was very pleased to bring in that regulation earlier in the year to make it mandatory. I think that's also very important in relation to what you were talking about: houses.

Thank you, Minister.