I'm going to start by acknowledging and welcoming what was announced by Plaid Cymru and the Government last week—not quite as cynical as some, perhaps. It's not the end of the process, of course, but it does keep the debate alive, and it does mean that there has been a change of attitude. The other choice was that we just let it go and carry on. So, I think we need to acknowledge that great work has been done on these benches to get to this point and to at least provide an opportunity that at least some Welsh farmers will be licensed and that everything will fall into place to ensure that they can spread 250 kg per hectare of nitrates on the land.

The £20 million, of course, is in addition to what's already been committed, but nobody's saying that that's going to pay for everything. But surely, it's better than what was there previously, so don't be so negative and don't be so cynical. But we're not blinded by the fact that there's a lot of work still to be done, and one of the things that I want to refer to also is that there is going to be another look at the regulatory impact assessment. Because we're in a different context—there's the cost-of-living crisis, we know that the costs of inputs in the industry have gone through the roof. The cost of construction, and the inflation in construction, to meet the infrastructure requirement is entirely transformed. And I think it's quite right therefore that that assessment should be looked at again so that it does reflect the new context—Ukraine, food security, and all of those things—that we need to bear in mind.

But there are still serious questions and real concerns that remain, and the Chair, of course, has referred to one of them, namely this adherence to the closed periods. I've raised this with you in the past, Minister; two years and more ago, I referred to the fact that some of the UK's greatest environmentalists said that farming by calendar was counterproductive. And you agreed that you were struggling with that approach, and with justifying that approach, and you acknowledged at the time that it doesn't, as we heard, take account of the fact that there could be days in the open period that could be totally inappropriate for spreading slurry, and days in the closed periods that would be appropriate. But, of course, that's what you've chosen to incorporate in the regulations.

So, in responding to the debate, perhaps you could tell us what persuaded you that that was acceptable. What changed your mind against the views of some of the great UK environmentalists, that looking at a calendar to see whether the circumstances are favourable was better than looking through the window? That's essentially what the regulations say. And your response to that recommendation—it's recommendation 8 if memory serves me—does refer to technology, and that technology is being developed, and that we're approaching a time where we'll be able to adopt a system that is far more real time in nature, and will provide precision. So, the technology is there, and it's almost ready to be rolled out across the country. 

But in your response, you say that you will consider this during the four-year review. Well, does that mean that you will force the sector to invest in infrastructure, to spend millions upon millions of public money—and their own money—and then perhaps, in two years' time, you'll say 'Well, we have technology now, this won't be necessary'? So, you truly to need to reconsider on that point.