That is probably the case in some instances. I don't accept it's the case in all instances, though, I have to say. And I don't think that businesses should be rewarded for failure to prepare or to comply with legal obligations. However, I do appreciate that the rising costs and global circumstances that were mentioned have added additional pressures. Although, actually, these regulations were well known well ahead of that. 

So, I'd like to know about the £20 million—and I welcome it—to help achieve compliance, but to be reassured that people aren't being double paid—that people who've already been paid to comply aren't getting more money or the same money twice. 

The committee recommends this derogation that we've heard about—the 250 kg per hectare of nitrogen. While that was not accepted, the implementation date for the 170 kg per hectare limit has been put back. I find that extremely disappointing. The Minister has announced a consultation on the 250 kg per hectare licensing scheme until 2050. We should, of course, assess the economic and the environmental impact of the reduced limit, but in my view, 170 should remain the default limit. I support Wales Environment Link's view that alternative ways of managing animal waste should be found, as opposed to reintroducing that higher limit. So, there are other ways. If we don't look at other ways, we're back to exactly where we started again, and agricultural pollution is the most frequent cause of contamination in our waterways. If we fail to deal with that, we fail our farming community and the wider environment. With that in mind, we should all support whatever is available and whatever works for the protection of our environment, which, ultimately, is protecting the future sustainability of all our land and our waterways.