The next item on the agenda is a statement by the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs on 'Sustainable Farming and our Land'. And I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Today, I have launched 'Sustainable Farming and our Land'. This consultation sets out my proposals for agricultural support after Brexit. 'Sustainable Farming and our Land' sets out proposals and seeks views on the new sustainable farming scheme and the underpinning policy framework. It also sets out proposals for wider areas of support to help the scheme operate, including advice, industry support and regulation. Further, it provides an update on transitional arrangements and explains what will happen after this consultation, including how impact assessments will be prepared. 

Last year, we published the 'Brexit and our land' consultation. Over 12,000 responses were received and we carried out extensive engagement with farmers and other stakeholders. We've carefully considered the views expressed in the consultation and have made a number of changes to our proposals. These include explicitly recognising the interaction between food production and environmental outcomes. This is important. We are proposing to directly support the economic, environmental and social contribution of farmers, foresters and other land managers. Other important changes that take account of views expressed are set out in the consultation.

While the Welsh Government can propose policy, it is only farmers, foresters and other land managers who can deliver real change on our land, and we need to support their efforts. I propose that this support should be designed around the principle of sustainable development, which is enshrined in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. This is why we have adopted sustainable land management as our policy objective in our proposals.

My overall ambition is to have sustainable farms producing both economic and environmental goods in a holistic system that enhances the well-being of farmers, communities and all the people of Wales. Sustainable land management provides a robust framework for future support. It places the production of high-quality food alongside the role our farmers play in maintaining and enhancing our natural environment and rural communities. It reflects the importance of the sustainable management of natural resources and provides opportunities to tackle climate change and to maintain and enhance biodiversity. Adopting this objective is an important step to taking action to meet our obligations to present and future generations.

To facilitate achieving this policy objective, I am proposing a single sustainable farming scheme. A single scheme will allow us to support farmers in delivering both economic and environmental opportunities at the same time. It helps us find win-wins—things that are good for both food production and the environment. The scheme proposes to pay farmers for the environmental and other outcomes they deliver that are not valued by the market. These outcomes can be produced alongside the production of food through appropriate farming practice. For example, effective nutrient management and targeted application of fertiliser on farms reduces leakage of pollutants into our air and watercourses, which will improve air and water quality. We can pay for these environmental outcomes. Paying for environmental outcomes delivered through appropriate farming practice would ensure 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 basic payment scheme.

These payments will provide a meaningful and stable annual income stream for farmers. However, an income stream alone is not enough. Therefore, the Welsh Government proposes to offer a range of business support, including building business capacity and skills, capital investment to enhance sustainability, and knowledge transfer. This package of support will sustain and secure the important social contribution farmers make to the prosperity of rural communities by keeping farmers on the land.

This is particularly relevant to responding to the challenge of climate change. On the 29 April, I declared a climate emergency in Wales. Climate change will impact on us all and Welsh farming is no different. Combating the consequences of climate change is crucial if we are going to be able to hand over our vibrant Welsh farming industry to future generations. Farmers, foresters and other land managers are uniquely placed to respond to the climate emergency. For example, Welsh soils store 410 million tonnes of carbon. We need to maintain this stock and work to build it up further. The proposals in the consultation are designed to reward farmers managing their land in this important way.

I'm looking forward to engaging with the public and stakeholders in the coming months, especially in the proposed co-design process. Co-design is an opportunity to explore the more practical aspects of the proposed scheme. We will have to make this scheme accessible and realistic for farmers to implement. Their views on these aspects will be crucial. The responses to both the consultation document and the co-design programme will be carefully considered. We will then determine and set out next steps once we've been able to fully consider all consultation responses and in the light of Brexit developments over the coming months.

We continue to call on the UK Government to provide further clarity on the level of agricultural funding that will be returned to Wales after Brexit. Welsh Ministers are clear that leaving the EU should not mean any reduction in the funding returning to Wales. Once funding is returned, we will ensure funds are directed at farming, forestry and other land management support, and not spent elsewhere.

Making new land management policy a practical reality as the UK leaves the common agricultural policy poses a challenge, but it is a challenge that is absolutely worth meeting. We are taking the consultation and design process slowly and carefully, and involving as many farmers and wider stakeholders as possible. This will ensure we have the best information and knowledge available to make our proposals for sustainable development in agriculture a reality.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for your statement. I've said to you before and I'll repeat it again, I believe that you have one of the most exciting opportunities in Government to actually genuinely shape a policy that historically has been shaped some distance from these shores over the last 45 to 50 years. Irrespective of what people think about Brexit—and I appreciate there have been many heated debates in this Chamber—as the First Minister said in responding to my question this afternoon, for the first time there will be the ability for Welsh Government Ministers to direct the support and policy in this particular area and across the rural economy, and that's something that has to be welcomed.

I also welcome—. I'll go to the end of your statement, if I may, where I'll start. I do welcome the assertion from your good self—and I can appreciate the Member for Mid and West Wales chuntering away from a sedentary position, offering commentary as much as she wants—but I do note in the statement that you give the reassurance that any moneys that will come forward will stay in the rural affairs department and be directed at forestry, agriculture and other initiatives to support the rural economy. I think that's a really important assertion to make here because there have been concerns that, potentially, some of this money could go into other projects, and I appreciate not from the Government bench, but certainly from other commentators in this particular area. So, I think that's a very important assertion that has been given.

But then I move on into the statement where it says that the implementation of any of these policies needs to be 'realistic for farmers to implement'. I notice that in the statement it doesn't talk of what we've seen in the explanatory documents about bespoke plans for each and every farm. I do wonder how logistically you're going to be able to achieve that. I have to declare an interest: it's in the register of Members' interests that I'm a farmer myself and I have some experience of the Tir Gofal scheme and the Glastir scheme. These types of schemes are very complicated, take a huge amount of time to develop, and the mapping exercises and all the other pieces of information that have to be collected to create that very personal plan for that particular business are hugely time-consuming and bureaucratic. So, I'd be grateful if you could highlight in your response to me how you see that actually being implemented in (a) the time frame you've got, and (b) in the very bespoke way that you refer to in the explanatory documentation that you've released with this statement today. Because obviously that is a massive exercise that needs to be undertaken.

Moving on into what you've done now by bringing the two streams that you originally proposed in 'Brexit and our land' and moving it into the one stream of support. Obviously what's happened historically under the common agricultural policy is you've had the direct support for agriculture and you've had the RDP—two separate streams. I'd be grateful to understand—because you touch on it in your statement about developing capacity for skills, developing other business models to support the rural economy—if it is not to be envisaged that there will be a similar RDP-type project, how exactly are you going to make moneys available in a one-size-fits-all project, which again could in one breath be simplified but in another breath be hugely complicated as well if it's trying to be captured by one overarching scheme? I think that a more detailed explanation of how that might happen would be appreciated.

I really do welcome the focus on quality food and food production. We have a very good story to tell here in Wales and, obviously, the original consultation didn't really spend much time talking about what the productivity of the industry might be. I think that's a welcome change in tone that has been brought forward.

What we've found in the environment committee is the danger or the vulnerability of the tenanted sector, and I do think that any scheme that comes forward does need to obviously reflect on the tenanted sector here in Wales. A third of land in Wales is under the tenanted regime, and it is important that it is actually the person who's delivering the public goods that receives that money, I would suggest. There are many clever surveyors out there and many clever agents out there who will, no doubt, find one way or another of developing a scheme around this. But I do hope that the Minister can give us some comfort in the formation of her schemes that her department and her officials are looking at making sure that the principle has to be that the person delivering the public goods element will be the recipient of the support from the Welsh Government.

The modelling and impact assessment that you talk about in here is welcome, but it would be good to try and get an understanding of the time frame that you're working to, given the very tight time frame that we're talking of. As I understand it, little or no modelling to date has been done on many of these proposals, and I know, again, if I refer to my experience on the environment committee that has looked at this, that has been an area of concern that we have looked at.

At the start of the statement, you talk about the contribution of farmers, foresters and other land managers. I'd be grateful to understand who you're referring to when you talk of 'other land managers' because they are ultimately going to be eligible, I assume, for support under this. At the moment, there's about 16,000 or 17,000 recipients under the common agricultural policy. Potentially, if we do not get an eligibility criteria into this scheme, evidence that we have taken points to the fact that you could potentially have as much as 40,000 to 45,000 recipients under the scheme. Just logistically, that's going to be a huge management exercise, just introducing all those new recipients. But also, whatever quantum of money that is made available will be spread that much thinner and maybe not achieve the goals, aims and aspirations that you're looking to achieve.

I think it's really important that we look at this as a positive journey that ultimately can reduce and rectify some of the issues that we've had under the common agricultural policy. If implemented correctly—and, as I said, the tone has changed in this statement, to reflect the importance of food production, productivity and skills, and the vital role that agriculture and farmers play in developing the rural economy—then, we can have a successful outcome. And I do welcome the change in tone in the statement and the accompanying notes that have come with it.

Thank you, Andrew R.T. Davies, for those questions and comments. I take your comments around the tone changing as welcoming that. I made it very clear last year, when we went out to consultation on 'Brexit and our land', that it was a meaningful consultation and that we would listen. We had over 12,000 responses—not all individual ones, but I certainly read many of the individual responses that came in—and food production was something that was right at the fore and that there should be this focus on food production. We did have food in the 'Brexit and our land' consultation; I don't think 'Health and harmony' had it at all. And, of course, I recognise that farmers are food producers. However, I think what's very different in 'Sustainable Farming and our Land' is the connection between food production and environmental outcomes, and I think it is very important that that's there.

You are right, it is an exciting time to be able to have a Welsh agricultural policy. As you know, I was a passionate remainer, so whilst it is an opportunity, I wish I wasn't having to do it. However, we have been very clear that any funding that comes from the UK Government—. And we expect them to keep their promise that we wouldn't lose a penny. So, at the moment, I get around €330 million, which lands in my budget and goes straight out to farmers and land managers within the common agricultural policy. So, whilst I heard you refer to what Joyce Watson said—. And she makes a very, very good point: ring fencing nothing doesn't give you very much. It's really, really important that we get some clarity. I've just signed a letter to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in DEFRA—you know, we are trying to get clarity about the level of funding. As you know, I meet regularly with my UK counterparts, and we have asked for a Treasury Minister to be present at those meetings to gain some knowledge around what funding we are going to get. Unfortunately, to date, apart from one phone-in, we haven't been able to do that.

You referred to the bespoke plans and I absolutely take your knowledge of what you have to go through to be part of those schemes, so I think it's really important that we make it as simple as possible. I think one of the reasons that so many farmers voted to leave the European Union—what they tell me is it was because of the bureaucracy and the red tape around CAP. And I've said many times that if we make it more complex, we will have failed; it's really important that we don't do that. So, nothing's been decided in relation to that. The consultation and the co-designed proposals and the process that we will enter with, co-designing the scheme with farmers, because they're the ones who are going to have to work with them—it will allow us to design a scheme that will be streamlined for those participating. I want to ensure that any future proposals are practical and that they can be delivered. So, it's ambitious, and I think we should be ambitious, but I think also we have to be pragmatic.

We intend for all farmers to be able to implement actions to deliver outcomes appropriate to their farms, and it's really important that we do have those bespoke plans, because one size will not fit all. As far as I can see, every farm is different. Every farm that I visit is certainly different, so I think it is really important. And the farm sustainability review will provide the opportunity for the adviser and the farmer to work together to determine the most appropriate actions on each farm. I was asked, certainly by the media, how did I envisage that we would have enough people to go out and visit every farm in Wales. And we obviously have Rural Payments Wales, who have done some outstanding work in relation to payments and working with farmers, so we have got something to build on. So, while I do think it's ambitious, I think it's deliverable and the scheme will allow us to have the development of simple contracts tailored to the individual farmer and their business needs. You make a very important point that it has to be the active farmer that's rewarded, and clearly, if we want these environmental outcomes, having sustainability as the fundamental basis for this scheme, I think, will ensure that.

In relation to tenant farmers, I think tenant farmers are a particular group that I want to do more for. I think it's sometimes very difficult for them to be able to do what we ask them to do. I've certainly worked with many of the tenant farmers and the Tenant Farmers Association to make sure that that happens. We're obviously out to consultation at the moment, so that consultation will then feed into this. In relation to impact assessments, again, it will be an ongoing process as the proposals are worked up. We cannot do full impact assessments until we know the budget, so that's one of the reasons I am seeking clarity around the budgets, but there will be several impact assessments. There'll obviously be a Welsh language one, there'll be a rural-proofing one and there will be ones around economic well-being. And we'll also look at the impact on our natural resources, and that includes biodiversity and heritage.

May I at the outset thank the Minister for making this statement today? Because it wasn’t the Government’s intention to make an oral statement, according to the business statement published. But I did request this—ask and you shall receive—and I am grateful to you for making this statement today, because this, of course, is one of the key issues that this Government will face in terms of the future of the agricultural sector and land management.

There is a change of tone, but there is no change of direction, of course, in terms of the Government’s direction of travel here. I still share the concern of the sector that there won’t be at least an element of a basic payment available to Welsh farmers, as there will be, of course, for Wales’s main competitors across Europe, Scotland, Northern Ireland and so on and so forth. I have made this point on a number of occasions. We need assurance, we need stability during this period when we are facing some of the greatest challenges that the sector has faced for many generations as a result of Brexit, and I do feel that looking to adopt an approach similar to Scotland would be far better at this particular time. But there we are. We will respond to what you’ve announced, and I look forward to being part of that process and doing the best I can with it.

So, there is a change in tone, certainly, here, but there's not fundamentally a change in direction. I think it's fair to say that the Government has been stung into a more conciliatory note following the response to the 'Brexit and our land' consultation. It's good to see references to collaboration and co-design in your most recent publication, it's just unfortunate, maybe, that the focus wasn't there from day one. It's also good to see you focus firmly now on rewarding active farmers, as we've already heard, and that tenant farmers will have access to this scheme. It's also welcome to see positive references to a cap on payments and on tapering payments as well, and recognising, of course, economies of scale that would, hopefully, benefit smaller farms in Wales.

Now, I pressed you two or three weeks ago on how you thought that you could actually introduce such far-reaching proposals without a clue in terms of what Brexit is going to give us and what the post-Brexit environment is going to look like in terms of our trading relationships—not only with international markets, but, of course, within the UK, potentially, as well—access to markets, whether we're subject to tariffs and, of course, what level of funding is going to be available to us. I think there is a huge irony that your consultation finishes on the day before Brexit, which is the day that everything changes, potentially. I don't want to suggest that we're wasting our time here, but if the goalposts are moving, then if you've consulted on a specific set of proposals, then it may be that we need to revisit some of that.

So, it's good that you've actually taken that on board to an extent here, because, as you say, you're not consulting on a specific timescale, because you want to see what happens in terms of Brexit. You're not consulting in terms of transition arrangements, because, obviously, you need to understand what's happening with Brexit and, particularly, on the level of payments that might be available, because, obviously, you need to see what kind of funding is available post Brexit. Well, if it's relevant to all of those, then surely it's relevant to the wider scope, as well, of this consultation.

You touched earlier on on the modelling and the impact assessments that the Government is looking to carry out. Can you confirm whether any of that work is going to start before Brexit? Because if it does, then, again, the whole thing changes and the set of circumstances might be totally different after Brexit, particularly in the economic sense that you've touched on in your previous response. So, surely a more meaningful modelling exercise would take into account the lie of the land post Brexit in terms of the economy and other factors that are influencing the future of the sector here.

Now, I am concerned, and I share concerns that have been expressed around the Government's capacity to deliver on these proposals. I know you recognise that, although I'm not hearing exactly how you're going to deal with that. To visit all farms, to discuss, agree and deliver complex scheme contracts is going to be hugely resource intensive. So, I want to understand where that resource is coming from, because you said yourself last week you have no idea how much funding you're going to get, even if you're going to get any money at all. I think Boris Johnson has added to that concern recently when he actually said that he thinks that he could probably spend some of it himself. So, there are big, big questions, and you still seem to be intent on ploughing this furrow.

Now, the statement that you've issued today commits that funding returned to Wales is not spent elsewhere, and I think that's a positive statement, clearly. But I'm just interested—if there is a shortfall, then can you today commit that the Welsh Government will make up that shortfall? I ask because the Government did exactly that last week, when it comes to the public sector pensions cost, where the UK Government actually fell short in what was provided by it, and that was made up from reserves by the Welsh Government. So, I'd be interested to know whether that principle would be the same for Welsh farmers as well.

Just another point as well—it's something I raised with you in your previous statement today, and it's a principle that you accepted there—would you commit to publishing what percentage of responses to this proposed consultation come from Wales, so that we can be clear that this is the expressed opinion of the people of Wales, and not others who wish maybe to influence this process.   

Diolch, Llyr. I have to take issue with you on a couple of points. You say I've been stung into changing direction or changing tone. If we have a consultation, any consultation I've ever run as a Minister in whatever portfolio—it must be meaningful. If I didn't listen, you would complain. If I do listen, you say I have been stung into it. You can't have it both ways. [Interruption.] Well, 'a change of tone' I think was the phrase that you used, and I absolutely commit to this consultation being meaningful too. It's 16 weeks: again, a long consultation over the summer.

You also complained, I think, about the time frame and the fact that it finishes on 30 October. For those Members who were in the Chamber when you thought that I was going to postpone this consultation by two weeks, they will have heard your outrage then. So, again, you can't have it both ways. We cannot sit back and wait for Brexit to happen around us. Whatever form it takes—if, indeed, as you say, we do leave—we have to be prepared. So, this is the reason why—. I did commit to going out to consultation at this time probably several months ago, and I believe that it’s the right time to do that.

Around some of your specific points, again, another issue that I really don't grasp with you is around the basic payment scheme. We accept that it has not protected farmers in the way that—. You only have to look at volatility, for instance, and the weather last year, when we had a drought. Certainly, the basic payment scheme would not help us with the climate emergency, and I know how committed you are to working towards reversing the damage that's been done to our climate. So, I'm quite surprised that you take that tone around the basic payment scheme.

What this scheme will provide is a stable income—a multi-year stable income. You asked me whether we would start looking at impact assessments before 30 October. I think that we need to take it slowly, so probably not. However, what I will start to do before 30 October is look at the co-design and what form that co-design will take. Last year, you may remember—and you may have attended one yourself—officials worked very closely with farmers, but it was more of a question and answer session. It won't be like that following this consultation. It's going to be much more about workshops and perhaps officials going out to farms and working with farmers. Farmers have to work with these schemes and we have to make sure that they are at the fore when we co-deign. So, co-design probably is a different word, as you say, in this consultation, but I think it's very important that we do that.

Capacity is a concern; I'm not pretending that it isn't. However, I am assured that we will be able to do this. It will take time, but I think we do have a little—. One thing that the Brexit uncertainty has done is given us a little bit more time, and I'm determined to take it slowly. Not every farmer will want to be part of this scheme, just like not every farmer is part of the basic payment scheme now. I would like every farmer to be visited anyway, but I'm not sure that farmers will want that. But it's so refreshing to go out to farms and see the amount of environmental outcomes that they're already producing and not being rewarded for. I was on a farm yesterday, where the farmer told me very proudly that the field that I was standing in—he'd had it assessed, and there were between 90 and 100 tonnes of carbon stored per hectare on his farm. He's not being rewarded for that at the moment, so I think it's really important that we do reward that.

I certainly can't commit to Welsh Government filling any gap of funding. What I will commit to is to continue to press the UK Government to ensure we do not lose a penny, as we were promised, if we left the European Union. I'm very happy to look at that percentage of responses, because I think this would be a very interesting consultation to have a look at that.

I welcome the statement today, and clearly I won't be in agreement with everything everybody has said, but I am in agreement with your statement. I'm really pleased that we're now valuing, within this statement, the environment, which the market currently doesn't. I think there's a whole job that can be done here, and I want to make it clear that there is no doubt that the farmers and the producers at the moment do produce good-quality goods, whether that's food or other items, on their farms. And that is promoted through organisations like Hybu Cig Cymru, for example, and I think if we're moving into a new scheme, there's a real opportunity not to just talk about promoting quality goods, but about promoting quality land-managed goods. Because I think there's a whole conversation that's changing now. People do want to know about provenance and we're very good at that, that's clear, but they also want to know not just where the food has come from, but they want to know how it's been grown. They're quite interested in the impact of those goods and services that they're buying on the climate, so I think we need a whole change of conversation around that. That would be a really, really good news story for Welsh farmers, because it isn't the case necessarily that that's not happening already. But we need to change the way that we sell that, and I think in order to do that, bringing people along with us is obviously critically important. That's where I agree with everybody here, and you clearly have recognised that in this statement.

But I think, whilst we bring along the people who are already engaged in farming or land management, it's also an opportunity to have discussions more widely and recognise expertise that currently might not be in the room, and might help guide people to the future in the way that that is going to be needed. Because there's no doubting climate change, although some have tried. We do have very heavy rainfall at the moment, and we are having long spells of drought. That in turn will mean that we'll have to deliver those goods in a completely different way. That very heavy rainfall is washing away and eroding the soil. It's also washing away all the pollutants, and you mentioned that in here, and I'm really pleased to see that. But if we look at those long spells of drought that we're currently experiencing, and very warm periods, should we not be looking at the opportunity to grow something differently that might not have grown here before, and maybe investing in some of those schemes?

I think we need to be, and you are, forward-thinking here. We can look at the possibilities of what can work, might work, and also we're going to have to learn what won't work. But that's always been the case in farming, and I want to promote here—because I'm going to—Caerhys organic farm in Pembrokeshire, because it led the way very early on when others weren't, and it diversified instead of—. The only way it could have survived was increasing the number of cows that it had on the land. It decided not to, and went organic instead. So, I think there are some really good examples of where things have worked, but the biggest threat to all of this, and I will repeat it, is Westminster. We've heard some very worrying statements about money grabbing today. And that's previous EU money that came here and belonged to Wales. I'm sure you've had conversations, and I'm sure you'll have them again, but we cannot have a situation where we have all the money centralised in Westminster, and Westminster dictate to us in Wales what we can do because they've hung on to the purse strings. Thank you.

I'll start with that last point that Joyce Watson made. I have made it time and time and time and time again, and I mentioned in an earlier answer—we want a Treasury Minister at our quadrilaterals. We get it with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy quadrilaterals in relation to the energy part of my portfolio, so I don’t see why we can’t do it with the agriculture, fisheries and environment side as well. So, it’s really important we get that clarity. I mentioned I’ve written again to—this is actually going to Robert Goodwill, who chaired the last quadrilateral meeting. We need that assurance because, as I say, ring-fencing zero doesn’t give us very much. And we were promised we would not lose a penny if we left the European Union, and they have to hold good to that promise.

I think you make some very important points about sustainable land management and why we are doing that. It is an internationally recognised concept, and it reflects the use of our land in such a way that the needs of the current generation are balanced with the needs of future generations. And I have to say, farmers absolutely get that. They’re always talking about their future generations and the need to protect the land. And the farm I was on yesterday had the most amazing landscape. People come to Wales for that landscape, and they also come for the food as well. And you make a very important point about provenance—people are much more interested in where their food has come from and how it’s grown. So, the farmer was telling me yesterday that his lambs eat a lot of clover with their grass, and that makes for much better tasting meat. So, clearly, already thinking about all these things. But a lot of the public goods he is providing, he’s not being rewarded for, and it’s really important we get those environmental outcomes and he gets that reward.

We have put food much more to the fore in this consultation and food production in a sustainable way. I was asked by one of the unions, who thinks food is a public good—it’s not, it’s got a market, and it’s not right on the taxpayer that we pay for something that does have a market. But it is right that we reward for things for which there is no market, including the air quality, the water quality, the soil quality, the nutrient management that we’ve referred to in this statement.

The curlew is now considered the most pressing bird conservation priority in the UK, and the relevance of this to your statement will become evident. The 'State of birds in Wales 2018' partnership report shows that losses of curlew have been more acute than in the rest of the UK, with more than three quarters of the Welsh curlew population disappearing over the last 25 years and no hint of this trend levelling out. And Gylfinir Cymru, the curlew Wales partnership, has heard that agri-environment schemes for the curlew, although operating for 40 years, clearly haven’t worked for this species.

Yesterday, I attended the curlew summit at No. 10 Downing Street, alongside: Lewis Macdonald MSP—one of your Labour colleagues—species champion for the curlew in the Scottish Parliament; Jake Berry MP, species champion for the curlew in Westminster; and the lead specialist adviser for ornithology in Natural Resources Wales—you may have been aware he attended. We heard that sufficient resource will be required to advise, encourage and assist groups of farmers to come together to deliver, monitor and champion curlew and biodiversity across landscapes, and that there’s a need to understand the multiple and multispecies benefits from an ecosystem resilience and a cultural and natural heritage perspective that can be delivered through curlew conservation action.

So, how do you respond to the following relevant points to your statement made at this large round-table and cross-party meeting: that we’re at a critical time for the curlew, and perhaps have only 15 years left; that we should all be involved in co-designing a scheme with tests and trials; that we need a needs-based mechanism for farm payments; a smart-based and measurable approach; and that we need co-ordination of actions working at scale and together including statutory agencies and across the UK? And I emphasise the critical importance that the Welsh and Scottish Governments be invited to become involved fully at the first moment that DEFRA or an UK agency is brought into this.

And I conclude by quoting environmentalist and Curlew Moon author Mary Colwell, who was present, who said, 'It's so shocking that Wales may truly have only 15 years left of the haunting call of the curlew—heartbreaking.' It is heartbreaking. We can do something about it, but it isn't only about the curlew, it's about the farm support plans that follow and the multiple both food production and species benefits that can follow. How would you respond to those points made?

Thank you, Mark Isherwood. I was aware of the summit to which you referred. I wasn't aware you were attending, but I was certainly aware of it. I think probably what would be the best way forward—. Obviously, farmers—. I've been on several farms where—I can't think of the curlew, but different breeds of birds—they are doing a great deal of work to make sure that they don't go out of existence. I can think of a couple of farms, particularly in the Snowdonia national park, in relation to different types of bird. So, I think maybe it would be good to put forward a response to the consultation. I'm sure you will get some farmers who would come together as a group to do that, because I'm sure that—if you say it's 15 years, that's a curlew crisis by any other words. I'd be very happy to also have a discussion with you outside of the Chamber around that. I'm not quite sure how it fits into the consultation, but I would certainly look at any response and whether it could be viewed as an environmental outcome. I'm sure it can. We haven't designed the scheme yet. As I say, that's part of the meaningful consultation. So, I'm very happy to look at that. 

Thank you, Minister.