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.