Thank you, Minister, for your statement this afternoon. I'll just start by maybe asking you to explain a few inconsistencies that I think I'm spotting in your statement and in the associated policy response document that you published to go with the statement today. You tell us in your statement that you'll be undertaking a range of economic analyses to understand the impact of moving from one system to another—you've already elaborated slightly on that—and that you're expecting output from the analysis next summer, but in the next breath you say that before the end of this Senedd term—so, that's long before next summer and before the economic impact analysis is going to be available—you'll be publishing a White Paper, paving the way for the introduction of an agriculture (Wales) Bill. So, really, is that not putting the cart before the horse because you're proposing legislation before you know what the economic impact is going to be?

And later on you tell us in the statement that the UK Government's ongoing delays in confirming the level of replacement funding are frustrating and are delaying detailed forward planning—and I couldn't agree more—but how, then, can you do the economic analysis of the impact of a new support system if you don't know how much money is coming to Wales? Because if we get £5 million, it will have a certain impact; if we have £105 million, it'll have a very different economic impact. So, it suggests to me that you're working blind somewhat here and the risk is, of course, that you get it horribly wrong. 

I'd like you to elaborate further on the consultation that you mentioned may or may not happen this summer—exactly when it's happening, you weren't sure—about retaining and the simplification of rules around agricultural support for farmers and the rural economy. What kind of rules are you looking at here? Which rules in particular? Just give us an example, because I just want to understand exactly what you're trying to achieve and where you're targeting that consultation.

You tell us in your statement that some are arguing that the focus on environmental outcomes would harm the financial viability of Welsh farming. I don't agree it would harm the economic viability of Welsh farming. I think, actually, that payment for public goods offers huge opportunities, and we have to reflect the climate and ecological crisis that we face within land management policy as we do across all Government policies. But, of course, my issue, as you know, is that you're framing this as an either/or situation. You're giving us the proposal that either we have payment for public goods or we retain a basic payment. Now, I don't agree that it is that either/or situation. Doing away in totality with at least an element of a direct payment I believe carries with it too much risk that you'll actually lose those family farms that you're actually depending upon to deliver the environmental outcomes that we all want to see. And, of course, what that will do is it will further entrench the power imbalance that we have within the food supply chain, leaving Welsh farms to a greater extent at the whim of a dysfunctional market, which is overwhelmingly, of course, controlled by a very small number of very, very large retailers, and that'll actually weaken, and not strengthen, the sector's resilience in many ways. You say that the production of food is rewarded by the market—those are your words. Well, if COVID-19 has taught us anything, it's underlined once and for all that, actually, food production isn't always rewarded by the market, and very often it's exploited by the market, and exploited to the detriment of our family farms, our rural economy and wider rural community. So, taking away any direct support leaves those farms, I fear, even more exposed, and Brexit, of course, will make things even worse. So, that's why I would prefer a hybrid model. Yes, let's ramp up the public goods support, but also retain at least an element of direct support.

Now, finally from me, you refer to the advisory service and you say that you're going to commission an independent and objective assessment of the effectiveness of Farming Connect—you tell us in your policy response document—to help shape the design of future advisory support, and I think that's the perfectly right thing to do, but, of course, developing on what was said earlier about some of the issues that have recently been exposed in relation to the RDP by the Auditor General for Wales, the risk is, of course, that, in carrying over the RDP approach, effectively, into the new system that is being proposed, then you risk, of course, carrying over something where maybe we haven't learnt the lessons that we need to learn in terms of the way it's been delivered, whether—. You know, we certainly haven't assessed effectively enough, I think, the impact of the RDP thus far—the value-for-money stuff and the cost-effectiveness issues that were highlighted by the auditor general—and I know a number of people are calling for an independent review into the RDP. So, if you're willing to have an independent and objective assessment of certain elements, then surely you should be willing to have that wider take on the situation before we actually implant it at the heart of the new system that we're moving towards.