Yes. Well, that’s been—. One of the most intense parts of our engagement is the requirement from the people who will do this work for us—the land managers, the farmers—to get as much simplicity in the scheme as—. And as you know, one of the asks was—. We've got 17 universal actions, and I think some people's minds were blown, and I fully understand that. So, we've done quite an exercise with the officials groups and the ministerial round-table of streamlining them back, but without compromising. So, for example, I'll turn to some of the ones in the nature and biodiversity and environment field in a moment, but, in animal welfare, for example, there were really cogent arguments being put through the officials group that, actually, we can put these together; there is an animal welfare piece that we can put together that makes it really much more understandable, but that doesn't lose any of the complexity about what we're trying to do. So, we've done that and that helped.
So, we've come down from 17 to 12, but, in that, for example, one of the ones that we've had is—. We've had a lot of debate around multispecies cover crops. Now, there is real benefit to using these crops, but there can be, if they're not used in the right way, real disadvantages to be putting them in, taking them out, digging them in, digging them out, because what you actually want is the use of a multispecies crop that, over the long term, replenishes and enhances the soil itself. So, we've got that ambition to support farmers to ensure that bare soils are not damaged or eroded during winter weather, but, based on the consultation feedback and discussion within the group, we've agreed that the better way to do this, that bare soils can be protected, is through the universal code, but that the multispecies elements can be better supported through the optional habitat maintenance and creation, so that we bolt down the benefits of that. So, there is some real subtlety in the thinking. So, we haven't compromised; we've said, 'Actually, we think a better way to do this is, for those farmers who want to really drive this forward, we will put this into the optional and they can choose to go into this and draw down the payments, then, from it.'
And then, for example, on the heavily modified peatland, we've removed the universal action 6, but we've got the same ambition to protect the peatlands, because, as you know, Jenny, they are significant emitters of carbon if badly managed, but also significant carbon sequestration sources if we do it right. So, we've agreed, again in detailed discussion, that these can be better enhanced through the optional layer, where we take a much more targeted approach, then, carefully map and consider the needs of individual sites.