Climate Change, Environment, Sustainability and Rural Affairs Committee

So, the other aspect, and this was the aspect that I actually focused on far more as part of the review, because we could have kept going with the data and really not have come up with any significant conclusions, was to look to see whether the regulations were actually changing behaviour on farm and whether there were things that were happening that would eventually have a significant impact, but also to identify if things weren't working as well as they possibly could, in relation to those changes of behaviour, and how they could be improved. So, I did as much stakeholder consultation as I could squeeze in in the six months to really find out from all of those involved, obviously particularly the farming unions and farmers themselves, the non-governmental organisations who are involved in various aspects of water and environmental protection, the supply chain—those who are purchasing products from the farmers who are driving behaviour very significantly—farmer advisers, Farming Connect, and others involved, particularly groups like the agricultural contractors who are involved largely and who are the primary route for slurry spreading, for example. So, we had a very intensive period of stakeholder engagement.

Really, the key issues that you will be aware of that came out of that were that there were challenges for farmers with regard to complexity of record-keeping and reporting. There were particular issues around the closed period, and I know you're aware of that, and there has obviously been an emergency action, I suppose, this year to take that into consideration, but also the economic impact of the nitrate limits on particularly dairy businesses, and a greater need to really focus on one of the key pollutants, which is phosphate, and soil losses. So, those were the key areas that emerged from that stakeholder consultation.

But also, going back to the data, what we saw was that some of these issues were potentially contributing to very low levels, comparatively, of compliance with the regulations. I'm aware that the compliance has gradually improved since the recommendations were made, but we're still seeing only 51 per cent of full compliance with the whole regulations. So, I think that understanding some of these factors and working to improve them is what will shift the bar in terms of the effectiveness of the regulations in the long term.

Shall I pause there? There's a lot more I could say about the recommendations that we came up with, but I'll just pause. And if anybody wants to chip in or say anything whilst I'm speaking, please do.

I'm happy for Dr Bolton to continue. I'm not sure if Members are content, or if anybody's got any burning questions for Dr Bolton, as we currently stand. Shall we continue, Members? Happy? Yes, continue. Is that okay?

Yes, of course. There are some general points around the recommendations that I think it's worth just again reminding everybody of. The first point is that, although we identified that there was need for improvement, the imperative to reduce the levels of agricultural pollutants in water is absolutely the right thing, and really important, not just from the point of view of environmental sustainability, but also from a whole farming and food production perspective. So, the intent to improve the regulations so that they are more effective is really important. We also were able to be fairly optimistic in some ways, in that there is capacity to make the recommendations fairer and more proportionate and easier to implement for farming practitioners. So, whilst it might be complex, the recommendations and the regulations themselves are quite complex to implement, there is room for improvement, which is a positive.

One of the key questions that we were asked to look at was whether the all-Wales approach, where the regulations apply across all farm businesses across the whole of Wales, was appropriate. And we have concluded, and my view is very strongly that, geographically, it is appropriate, because when you look at where the key pollution incidents are across Wales, when you look at how water behaves in Wales, the multitude of catchments, it would be really difficult to single out, geographically, areas where the regulations should apply and shouldn't, as opposed to England, for example, where you have nitrate vulnerable zones, because the catchments are easier to manage. In Wales, both the farming practice across Wales and the geography make it very hard to have that geographic approach.

However, when you look at risk, which farm businesses are causing the greatest risk, there is a degree of variability. So, on the basis of farming practice and, for example, stocking density, one could identify those farm businesses that are very low risk, which could potentially have some sort of exclusion from the regulations. And those data are available to the Government, so it might be possible to make the regulations more proportionate in relation to the businesses that create the greatest risk. And just—[Interruption.] Yes, of course.

I think that's really important, proportionality, in the whole debate. Because with the national coverage, there is no proportionality, everyone has to meet the same level. Now, selfishly, if I look at the area I represent, Bridgend and the Vale of Glamorgan, and you talk about catchment, I'm unaware of any major incidents. And when you talk about the catchment areas in the paper, it identifies the main rivers—the nine main rivers, I think—and six of them are obviously polluted quite heavily, and they don't run through that geographical area in any shape or form. So, there is an element where you could geographically highlight areas in Wales that shouldn't have to adhere to the more stringent regulations and the burden and cost associated with that, is there not?

It would be very hard to do, geographically, for the reasons that I said, and particularly with regard to diffuse pollution. If the farming practices—again, looking at the farming practices in those different areas—if what they are potentially doing, rather than point-source large releases of nutrient or pollution into water, is that there's a gradual build-up of pollutants that come from a fairly large number of businesses—. However, my suggestion very strongly is that there are farm businesses that are low risk, and the things that create that low risk, the aspects that make a business low risk, are relatively easy to identify in relation to the stocking density and the type of farm practice. So, my recommendation is that those businesses can be identified and thus, then, the weight and the burden of the regulation can be lessened.

So, there should be greater understanding of the individual businesses rather than an onus on the geographical location.

Yes, because there could well be businesses in the Vale of Glamorgan—I'm not familiar with the particular businesses—that would be high risk and low risk within that catchment area, where it would be important then to ensure that the risk, the burden of regulation, is proportionate, and I think there is capacity to do that.

I think you've started off questions now, Andrew. I know Vikki's got a question.

Just a small on on that. Might you include farms that don't spread slurry within those possible exemptions?

Again, this was why we needed—. We only had six months in which to make the recommendations. So, the other aspect was very much that we needed to take each of the recommendations, including the capacity to segment by practice and stocking density, and that practice could include the slurry application practices. But the detail was—. It was then my suggestion that we set up task and finish groups in order to do that. And I'm aware that the task and finish groups' activity is now starting, which actually is a really good thing. And some of those decisions could be made by a group of stakeholders and experts relatively quickly, because an understanding of the risks, an understanding of where we can make the biggest difference with the regulation, is really important.

I don't know if you want to continue where you left off.

Shall I continue? So, it's actually a perfect lead-in to the other key point, which was that some of the recommendations we identified could be implemented relatively quickly. And knowing particularly the challenges to farmer well-being that had been reported to me consistently, there were certain of those that I felt we needed to move on particularly quickly and that they could be dealt with in the short term. We then identified ones that might take a little longer, where the expert advice and the detail needed to take some more time. They were medium-term, and then some were where, actually, the science and the opportunities and the challenges needed a longer period of time. But across all of these aspects, again, one of the things that came through to me very consistently was that there was a shared sense of purpose and that by moving away from perhaps what had been a fairly challenging debate, there was an opportunity to work with farmers, farmer representatives, and the supply chain in particular, because, obviously, the sharing of the risk with supply chain and food businesses is something that I think is increasingly becoming apparent, or the need to do that. Because placing the entire burden of responsibility on farm businesses, where they're being pulled in various directions by the regulation, and in a different direction, perhaps, by a supply chain business or a processor, which is demanding a greater degree of output—. Working together would mean that some of these challenges and conflicts could be addressed collectively, rather than either purely by farm businesses, or purely by the Government and the regulations. So, there was a very much a need, and, again, this was why the task and finish groups, I felt, needed to have a full set of representation, not just experts and not just farmers, for example.

Can I just ask a quick question here, Dr Bolton? You talk about sharing the risk, and I think that's important. One thing that the committee is going to look at, actually, in the future is wildfires, and also abattoirs as well. And when you say about sharing the risk with supply chains, those supply chains are asking certain parts of the industry to destock, for example, because of water elements, which was part of the review. I'm just interested, when you were going through that six-month period, in, perhaps, the disconnect between different parts of Government policy, and perhaps the silo working, even within departments, or not marrying up together. Is that something you identified as part of the review?

It was something that I explored, and it was something that I noticed. Again, perhaps, rather than seeing it as a problem, I think there's some opportunity there. One that's very pertinent to this review is—. Perhaps the farm businesses that are most affected by the regulation and, potentially, by the recommendations, are dairy businesses. We have a great opportunity in Wales to grow dairy production and to export dairy products, and there has been a degree of encouragement for dairy processors to build greater capacity within Wales. Obviously, in order to supply that capacity, dairy farmers have to produce more milk, and in order to produce more milk, they need more cows. So, this was an area where I did speak to a number of the dairy processors, but particularly to Leprino, who are looking at investing in Wales. What I notice is that those dairy producers see the issues, and they are very keen to work with Government in providing incentives to farmers to optimise their production whilst minimising risk. And I guess this is the key to it. With pollutants like the nitrates and the phosphates, the really important thing is to ensure that you're using them as effectively as you possibly can to produce as much as is appropriate on the land, to grow grass, which grows really well in Wales. And the tragedy is that if the phosphates and the nitrates are being wasted, we are neither growing grass as well as we possibly can nor producing milk as well as the businesses can and profiting from it. So, getting that right, again, represents an opportunity, but one where getting those balances right takes skill, takes attention.

I'm skipping ahead a little bit in terms of the way that I wanted to present this, but I think it's perhaps the most important thing. Enabling farmers to take advantage of emerging technologies, enabling farmers to have the appropriate skills, which are not straightforward and they require constant learning because the technologies are moving forward, enabling that is perhaps the key to unlocking that capacity to get that balance right and create much more closed systems where you are really giving the farmers a chance to become more profitable and, at the same time, more environmentally sustainable. And I know that that's something that some of the supply chain businesses are keen to invest in, keen to work with Government on.

I think we've got one question, if that's okay.

Yes, of course.

To give you a rest for a second.

A lot of the question I was going to ask, you've actually answered since I thought of the question. But, just to add to that, you said that, obviously, it's the relationship between producers, so it's an opportunity with the big companies, who need the production, to help farmers. You intimated, with regard to technology, as to what things could be done to mitigate the issues. What exactly? Have you got any ideas that you could put forward that would be the solution? What lines of technology?

So, there are no silver bullets.

No, I understand.

There are emerging technologies, there are existing technologies that are becoming available to support this greater degree of precision around the nutrient management, particularly—and I'm sure some of you will be aware—the new monitoring technologies, which are not that new actually, where you can test soil and environmental conditions and then use that understanding to know when best to utilise your fertiliser so that you time it appropriately for when the grass is growing best. And not only do you time it, but you use the right amount to get the optimum grass growth. Obviously, with, potentially, really interesting work around grass mixtures, grass genetics that we have in Aberystwyth, one can start to see opportunities for combining different aspects of those technologies to grow grass even better than we already do in Wales. So, that's one key.

The other key, and I think they have to go hand in hand, is the capacity to make better use of the nutrients in the slurry. At the moment, we fill big slurry tanks and, actually, one of the things that I think has been a moderate success with the regulation has been the investment in slurry infrastructure to enable farmers to store more so that they can have more flexibility over the timing of the applications. But there are emerging technologies that are looking at ways in which you can turn this heavy, wet, difficult to manage product into a drier, more easy to transport, more measurable product. At the moment, it's hard to know how much nitrate and how much phosphate you've got in your slurry, and how much of other things, actually—it isn't just those things.

But there are technologies, and they've been well developed, for example, for dealing with poultry manure, which is already a much easier product anyway. Poultry manure can now be pelletised, it can now be turned into a fertiliser where you know how much nitrate and phosphate you're buying when you buy that. The same is not yet true for slurry products, but the technologies, and there are businesses, like WASE Ltd, who are working to develop systems where you can keep more of the slurry value either for energy production but also for nutrient production on farm, and then potentially export it as a product. Most of the slurry is produced in areas where we've got too much nutrient—[Interruption.]

John, I've got a couple of Members, so if you come back—

This is one thing to that: at what point does that become profitable, where you can turn it into something that can be commoditised?

The problem is we're quite a long way away from that now. Perhaps the best indicator of where we need to get to is to look at chicken manure and to see where we reach that tipping point. We're a long way away from that, but, obviously, again, combining that with incentive, combining that with a better understanding of geographically where you need fertiliser and when, can we store—? Again, if we were able to store it in a slightly different form rather than in slurry tanks, which, obviously, if they get too full, they overflow or they leak—. Some of those infrastructure-type projects are really worth thinking about in terms of future long-term investment alongside these farmer skills, farmer development as becoming their own experts in this area.

I've got a couple of questions. I'll just remind Members that questions come through the Chair, because, if we don't, it will all descend into chaos here. So, I'll go to Paul first, then Vikki, then we'll come back to you, Dr Bolton.

Yes. Obviously, I have a background in technology, so I love emerging technology, I'm very interested in that. But the danger to me seems to be, around that, that if we start to—. The use of technology is really great for those people who can afford it, who can understand it or whatever, but does it put small, potentially vulnerable, family farms at a disadvantage? We talk about the mental health of farmers. Again, I worry that the use of technology, particularly if we start to require it, does put those people at a disadvantage.

Yes, I think it's something that we would need to—. Again, working as part of the task and finish groups looking at this, actually that implementation or the investment in innovation was one of the longer term recommendations, where aspects like that would need to be taken into consideration. Obviously, the potential to upskill and develop expertise in terms of precision is something that I would absolutely advocate for all farmers, and the sense that they have that they are being invested in and that they have the capability and are being trusted to manage nutrient on farm, I think would be a positive step in that regard.

The tools and technologies needed to actually introduce that greater degree of precision are not necessarily the expensive ones; it's the infrastructure requirements that are expensive. So, one of the things that I was looking at—but it's not quite there yet—are easy-to-use in-field phosphate probes, which could tell a farmer relatively quickly what the levels of phosphate are in their fields at quite a highly dense spatial scale, which, again, would enable much greater precision application. Some of these things, I think, again, part of the technology push would be to make them as available and accessible to all farm businesses as possible.

Lovely. Thank you. Vikki.

Yes. So, with regard to these emerging technologies and the fact that you said that a lot of it is not really new, I sat on a previous iteration of this committee, and I'm thinking it must have been around eight years ago that we had the most fascinating visit to Gelli Aur and also did some work looking at some of the emerging work coming out of Aberystwyth University as well, and I'm just wondering if you can shine any light about why the pace of those developments coming through into the system has been so slow and whether the task and finish group will be looking at ways that we can accelerate that?

Yes, I absolutely think that should be the case. In some ways, the discussion around the closed period, I think, will stimulate some of that activity and potential for rapid implementation on farm. It could happen quite quickly. The closed period and the challenges around it are exactly the sort of case in point, I think, that you're raising here. Because we have a closed period that is date determined, the need for understanding the soil conditions and the weather conditions at any one time are lessened. So, the incentives for farmers to invest in those technologies are lessened. That's not to say that a closed period is wrong. In fact, all of the evidence, the scientific evidence, is that grass doesn't grow in winter, but this year is a really fantastic illustration of the fact that if—. And I was very pleased to see the greater degree of flexibility that was implemented this year, because if all of the slurry had been applied earlier on onto dry ground, into conditions that would not grow grass, we would have had more of an environmental hazard than giving that greater degree of flexibility.

So, the ideal scenario is that farmers are trusted to apply when the nutrient is needed and is most effectively utilised. However, reporting against that is really complex, and one of the things—. The trade-off in all of this is that giving that greater degree of flexibility also adds a greater degree of responsibility for monitoring and reporting and demonstrating good practice. But, again, it comes back to the potential for proper investment in farmer skills and their ability to do that and recognise that it's actually of benefit to them and their business because they're not wasting the valuable nutrient. That investment in training and skills development could pay off significantly, I think, and it could help with some of these challenges around the uptake of technology as well.

I know we've probably got about 20 minutes left, because I said we'd run to half past. So, I was just wondering if there's anything—. I know a couple of Members want to come in, but I was just wondering if there's anything you want to ask. Because I want to make sure I give Members an opportune time at the end to make sure they can ask you some wider questions, if that's okay. So, I just wonder if there's anything you've missed that perhaps you want to cover quickly, then we can go perhaps to general questions with Members, then, if that's okay.

I think, actually, the questions have led me through very much what I had planned to talk about anyway, and the next part, really, was about—. I suppose the one thing I haven't mentioned was, again, the opportunity to make a couple of easy wins. Obviously, the challenges for farms under TB restrictions was something that I thought was very important—not to layer on an additional burden to those farm businesses when they're already under very high conditions of stress, and I know the task and finish group is looking at that. The other one was to make improvements to the workbook that is made available with the regulation, as part of the nutrient planning, the nutrient management plans, to make that simpler and more fit for purpose. The slight irony with that workbook is that it was developed as a tool to make it easier for farmers to work through and plan their nutrients. This is also another situation—. But, actually, they could use any tool that provided the same amount of data and reporting, so it's not a requirement in itself. But again it comes back to the realisation that all farm businesses should be able to benefit from improved nutrient management planning, and if they see it as a tool rather than a problem—. It's that shift in mindset that we really need to work towards, because keeping those nutrients on farm, or valorising them more effectively, is better for their business.

Lovely. Great. Thank you very much. So, we'll go to more questions from Members. I've got three Members who've indicated so far, Anna, Andrew and John—and Vikki—so I'll start with Anna.

Thank you very much. I really welcome the work you've done and the way you've explained it so clearly to us this morning, in particular, I suppose, recognising the impact on farmers and their well-being, and the emphasis you've put on making a fairer and more proportionate way of doing the regulations. I came in this morning thinking, 'Oh my gosh.' I represent Pembrokeshire, or Ceredigion Penfro, so that is a particular area with a dairy farming sector, but also, with the Cleddau, it's having huge economic impacts well beyond farming. But I feel more hopeful now that there are solutions. I suppose I was wondering where you think we've—. So, almost the way that the regulations are framed themselves, it feels like it has been, 'The farmer's the problem' and, maybe, 'Government—find the solution by regulating and stuff.' From what you're saying, it feels to me, potentially, that this is a part of the jigsaw, that we need to look at the whole food system, in a sense, much more, and not see this in as a focused way of dealing—. This isn't the only way that we're going to deal with this. And when you're talking about the whole supply chain, I think that's really important, and I suppose it brings me to financing this. We also see this as, 'Government needs to pay for all of these things', et cetera, but, actually, you can have better farm businesses, but also the whole food system or the processes et cetera—. I mean, can Government be looking to work with these big players and the big businesses in the food system to fund these changes, potentially?

Certainly, working to work alongside them, yes—I absolutely think that's a really valuable approach to doing this. The opportunities to work across Governments as well. So, I think there's—. There are, obviously, the parts of Government responsible for environment and food; there are also the parts of Government responsible for business and innovation. I think those aspects, alongside the supply chain, food production businesses, food retailers, really have the opportunity to come together for the shared purpose and the shared imperative, actually, to get this right, because the alternative is not one that is feasible at all. It's really important. There have been examples, and, at the moment, there actually is—. In a completely different area, in climate change resilience, there's a really good example of the different devolved administrations working with UK Research and Innovation to establish a long-term investment in research and implementation around climate change resilience. So, with some of these things, it is possible to work not only recognising that this is an issue not just for Wales—it has slightly different nuances in the different parts of the United Kingdom—but, actually, that there is an opportunity to join up some of the activity around this.

And our current Welsh Government is looking at a food strategy as well, and how all that fits into that. I'm going to mix the order that I call people, because I know Niamh and David haven't spoken yet today. So, I'll bring Niamh in, then David, and I'll come back round.

Diolch. Thank you for the overview. You answered a lot of my questions already. One of the questions I had, and you kind of touched upon it, is—. Obviously, we've got a new Government in place now, so I was just wondering what discussions you've had with this new Government regarding the implementation of your recommendations. Because I'm very aware this report is a year and a half ago now, the review you did, so a lot of time has passed. I think some of the things you've said, where you've seen, when you were doing your review, the impact that this is having on farmers' well-being, the fact that we're still only 55 per cent when it comes to compliance as well, and, again, all the short-term recommendations that, really, by now should have been in place—. I was just wondering, have you been having those discussions with the new Government? Are you feeding into that task and finish group? What is your role now with this?

I haven't, but what I've been doing is keeping contact with my Welsh Government colleagues. Obviously, there was a delay following the elections, but I'm pleased to say that the task and finish group has been established and it has met four times. They are still working on those short-term recommendations, but they're also working—because it's been given a greater sense of urgency, and, actually, I can understand why—and they're immediately addressing the challenges around the closed period. So, I am not involved directly, but I am being kept informed by colleagues in the Welsh Government, and I know they're doing the best job that they can do with fairly limited resources.

Obviously, the other thing that is encouraging in all of this is that there's been some further investment in Natural Resources Wales around working with farm businesses. And on NRW, I think perhaps that's one of the things I haven't said—how vital their involvement is and, again, how vital perhaps is the partnership approach that they take with farm businesses around finding the solutions, which is really critical, alongside Farming Connect and those others that are involved in providing support and advisory services to farmers.

Diolch.

David.

It's very interesting, the whole thing. How do we compare with the other UK nations and best practices?

It's very difficult to compare because, geographically, Wales is so different. Obviously, we have seen, in the part of the United Kingdom that I'm most familiar with, the way that the similar regulation is rolled out in England, and that is through the nitrate vulnerable zones. The nitrates directive was originally part of European regulation, so all of the regulation has a common root, and all of the regulation has a focus. I'm glad you've raised this, because it has raised the other thing that I hadn't mentioned, or hadn't spoken about in great detail: the nitrates regulations created this significant focus around nitrates, which are very immediately apparent in water, because nitrates move quickly. They're very soluble in water, so if you put some on the soil, it very quickly comes out, or it can be washed out—if it's not taken up by plants, you see it washing through.

What we've seen since those regulations were worked on and developed and rolled out is a much greater recognition of phosphorus as a key pollutant and one of the drivers of really challenging impacts of pollution, like algal blooms—particularly as we've seen in parts of the River Wye, but also in Northern Ireland, where they have huge challenges with high levels of phosphate. One of the issues with phosphate is that it doesn't move quickly; once you've applied it, it stays within the soil for decades. But once it gets past a certain level, you get sudden tipping points and you get sudden release, which then creates a more challenging pollutant environment. So, one of the other elements of the recommendation was actually that we should look more closely at phosphates. And of course, in Northern Ireland, they already are, because it's very immediately apparent to them.

The other aspect of the pollutants reaching water is actually through soil directly, through soil run-off, but also there is a real recognition that good soil management is also the other side of good nutrient management. If you can create a healthy soil, you can retain nutrients much more effectively in the soil. Some of the other Governments have been looking more closely at soil, including Northern Ireland, who have been doing a very interesting overall mapping job looking at their soil conditions and soil health.

So, there are lessons that can be learned. I wouldn't like to say that any one part of the UK is better than any other in doing this, because everybody has their own particular challenges. But this issue around really aligning good soil management alongside nutrient management is an aspect that I think all four devolved nations are addressing or thinking about at the moment.

I think most farmers would say they're soil farmers first. If you farm your soils properly, it's more profitable for the business. I'll go on to people who haven't already spoken, so I'll go to Andrew, John, then Vikki. And then Paul.

Thank you, Chair. Going back to the start, where you touched on proportionality versus the overall implementation of a national policy, I think that's critical to the whole policy here, because on Paul's point about small family farms, proportionally, they haven't got the balance sheet to invest in a lot of this new tech that you were highlighting, which hopefully in time will come. I've visited Gelli Aur, just like Vikki has, and seen the way they're turning dirty water into clean water as such. But to think a dairy farm with 80 to 120 cows is going to be able to afford that sort of technology is for the birds.

Would it be fair to say that the Government have not got the proportionality element right here? Because there are many good businesses who are doing a sterling job and doing their best to avoid pollution and have no black marks against their sheet with NRW, but just through the national way this has been implemented have found themselves unable to invest in the new technology, and therefore have had to lock the parlour doors and shut their businesses down. That is something that, from the family farm aspect of what Welsh agriculture is, we should be avoiding at all costs.

There is the opportunity to improve proportionality in relation to some very obvious aspects of risk, which is the type of farm business. For example, a farm business in the hills with a very small number of beef cattle or sheep, where they don't spread slurry, is going to be very low risk. I think those are the sorts of businesses that could be readily excluded, or potentially given a lower burden of reporting and management. However, all sizes of businesses potentially could represent a high risk. It's not necessarily determined by size of business, the degree of risk. Equally, all sizes of business could benefit from good nutrient management, which doesn't necessarily require technology. For some of those smaller family businesses, one of the things that I would suggest is that the approach that would need to be taken would be supporting them to understand the value of the nutrients on their farm.

One of the areas of lowest compliance is the completion of the nutrient management plans. Those nutrient management plans don't require technology. They do require somebody to spend a bit of time knowing their numbers, knowing how much they're applying and reporting it. All of that is good practice. One of the things that concerns me is that, because farmers find it difficult, they then ask somebody else to do it for them on their behalf because they don't want to get it wrong. The benefits of them doing it for themselves are that they run a better farm business. This is a sensitive area, because it is one of mindset. We can remember being at school and asked to do things that we really didn't like, but the benefits are great later in life. It's one of those areas where perhaps the nature of the way in which farmers are worked with is important, in order that they get to a point where they feel that they're empowered to make improvements to their business.

If their business is not viable because the number of livestock that they have means that they produce too much slurry that they don't have land for, this is perhaps the most challenging of all the aspects of the regulation. The supply chain businesses that are buying product from those farms, on whom those farmers depend for their livelihood, and the regulator, in whatever form, whether that's as Government or as NRW—. We need to reflect on the really difficult situation those farm businesses are in. But we also need to think about the ways in which, with an understanding of the grass production capacity on their farm, which, again, doesn't need technology and can be done with good nutrient management planning—. If they're able to report on that in quite a detailed way, there might be capacity to enable them to have an increase in the amount of nitrate, for example, that they can apply.

This was something that was negotiated and was enabled just before I started the review of the regulations. There was a derogation for farmers that did much more detailed nutrient management planning to apply more manure. Very few farmers took advantage of it, which was a real disappointment. But I think it was because they weren't necessarily sure how, and they were then scared that it might come back to bite them. That's a space that I think is really worth looking at again, but thinking about how it's managed rather than ruling it out as an option altogether. Sorry, that was a bit more complicated, but that was one of the most tricky parts of the review and the recommendations.

I do want to bring all Members in who want to speak, because it's a very interesting session that we're having. Are you okay to stay a little bit longer, if that's possible, because I do want to make sure we get everybody in? On the last point you made about communication with farmers, I think that is a problem that the Welsh Government have had for a number of years, actually. And it's not just over one Government, it's successive Government—how they get those messages out to our farmers. It's all done via a certain system, and if people miss it or don't see it, it tends to fall by the wayside. But that is something I think that we're going to look at in the future anyway. John.

Thank you. I'll make it quick, because I know Vikki wants to get hers in.

We've got time. Dr Bolton is happy to stay.

I'll add a little bit to what Anna was saying. At the minute, it looks as if the buck stops with the farmer. But you've got a supply chain, you've got the collectors, you've got the creameries, you've got the supermarkets and, ultimately, the individual. So, if you're looking at the polluter-pays principle in anything, you have to look at the much bigger picture.

I know that the price of milk is really quite tight, and what I'd like to know is if there's any room in that price within the whole chain such that you can squeeze out enough. Because if it comes down to that poor little farmer that has a relatively small farm, that is trying to do his very, very best, or their very, very best—. The money could be looked at either in terms of a little bit more for the milk, or maybe capital equipment. Sometimes, with public houses, the brewery will actually fund some of the capital equipment for a pub, and have a slightly lower price. So, it could be an interest-free loan. These are the things that could be done to allow the facilitation of the infrastructure. But, ultimately, the people further up the chain can't keep putting it down the chain, and, ultimately, it comes down to us as consumers.

The other thing that needs to be looked at is that, if the big companies want to use our land—. Ultimately, as you said, it's not up for grabs, because it cannot be polluted and cannot continue to be polluted, therefore they must get involved in the technologies to get rid of it. They have to take responsibility, not just the farmer. That's it. So, it's a statement, not a question.

Yes. So, I think working with the supply chain in finding the solution—

They should be made to get involved, not just working with them.

—is an important thing. One of the things I'm aware of, particularly, in milk pricing and milk good-practice incentivisation, is that there are some very good practices from milk buyers that we can learn from. There are things that we can look at there.

You mentioned the whole supply chain and the stakeholders involved. One of the groups that I think often gets missed off this as one of the keys for unlocking good practice is actually at the other end, the contractors. At least 90 per cent of slurry is spread not by the farmer but by agricultural contractors, businesses that go about with the specialist equipment to do that work. One of the challenges that farmers face is the availability of contractors at times when they're very busy. One of the challenges that contractors face is getting the job done at the optimum times across a wide geographic area. However, again, the professional standards for this group of businesses is something that could be looked at in terms of their potential to add in some more safeguarding and prevention of bad practice.

Okay, thank you.

'Welcome to agriculture', I think John's saying. Vikki.

My final question links back to David's question, actually, because I think it's always really important for us to look to international examples of best practice or emerging technologies and where we could be looking to move in the future. I know that, across the EU, there are just four countries that have moved from the 170 kg limit. I'm just wondering if there's any learning that we can have from what's being done in the EU or elsewhere, both with nitrates and the role of phosphorus.

Yes, absolutely. I think the capacity to learn from other European countries is great and the opportunities to look at practice, particularly around some of the infrastructure. The infrastructure investments around animal housing and the development of circular systems, particularly enclosed systems for dairy and pigs and poultry, is particularly well advanced in countries like the Netherlands and Denmark. Their buildings investment seems to be more effective—or the incentives for that sort of investment. It's difficult to draw direct comparisons because there are very few other parts of the world like Wales. So, there are learnings up to a point, but they're always with the caveats of the types of farm businesses that we have in Wales and the types of geography, and particularly the climate. One of the places that I would absolutely look to for learning is Ireland, where they are developing good practice through Teagasc, and what they're doing working with their farmers and their water courses. So, again, yes, we absolutely have, I think, an imperative to learn as quickly as we can from anybody else.

Lovely. Paul.

Earlier on, when we were talking about technology, you talked about farmers feeling invested in, and you've talked about that a few other times, I think, as well, how farmers—. So, where would you see that investment as coming from?

So, again, perhaps it comes back to the question earlier. There are some examples of good practice, where supply chain businesses, milk buyers, ensure that their suppliers have a particular degree of training and upskilling, which enables them to manage their businesses really effectively.

That sounds a little bit more like stick than carrot.

'Yes' and 'no'. I would suggest that, actually, quite a lot of those farm businesses value and appreciate the training that they participate in. I worked at the AHDB—the Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board—for 12 years, and one of the programmes that I led was the knowledge exchange programme. The Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board is funded by farmers and by supply-chain businesses. And the opportunity for organisations like that, which operates in Wales as well as across the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom, to be the route to provide some training is great, because that's one of the most valuable things that they can do, as well as investing in some of the technologies. The other types of groups—. A great example in Scotland—another organisation that I worked with—is Scotland's Rural College, providing direct advice and training into rural communities, funded primarily through the education programmes in Scotland, through that route, but also with the capacity to buy those services by all types of businesses, or by Government. So, the pieces exist. And obviously, in Wales, we have Farming Connect, who do a phenomenally good job and are trusted by farm businesses. So they, as a potential route to some of this activity, are great. Where the money comes from, it could be a variety of sources, but I don't disagree that the responsibility for funding should be spread across a wider variety of stakeholders than it currently is.

Thank you. And finally, David.

Something confused me. At the very beginning, you said that from the results or monitoring you've seen very little change. Will you see change with the other sources of pollution into the river, into the water courses, from domestic effluent et cetera? What's your opinion on that?

The monitoring has been able to separate out or to build a picture of where the bulk of the pollutants is coming from, and it's hard to generalise. Again, with nitrates, what we see is a much greater degree of fluctuation, because you can see where—. It moves quickly. So, the pollution incidents, whether they're point source or diffuse, have an effect on water quality. Where businesses have cleaned up their act significantly, either water companies or poultry businesses, for example—where they have cleaned up their act, you can see improvements in the nitrates, in terms of point source, the rapid—something going badly wrong. Diffuse pollution is much harder, because you don't know where it's come from. And we have this degree of background diffuse pollution that is predominantly agricultural source, or that we can identify is coming from agriculture, which is where you tend to see little change. And, as I said, with phosphates—. Sorry, the other point that I should make, and it is the excuse that the water companies make, for example, is that the pollution is very weather dependent. So, the other complicating factor that we see when we look at the water monitoring is that it's hard to separate whether you're seeing issues caused by changes in weather, or issues caused by changes in practice. The last point I'll make about that is that, with phosphates, the impact of changing practice now may take decades before we actually see a significant difference in levels in water.

Thank you. And thank you, Members. I'm going to use the Chair's prerogative with the very last question, if that's okay with you, Dr Bolton.

As a committee that is looking quite heavily into this, and it feeds into a lot of the work that we do, from your experience and in leading this review, are there any key areas that you think, as a committee, we should be laser focused on looking at going forward to make sure that we can hold the Government to account to actually deliver on the recommendations that you put to them?

I think the focus that is currently on the closed period is very interesting, because I think that then has knock-on effects in different areas. The task and finish groups that are looking at dealing with getting through the short-term recommendations really have to be task and finish groups. I have a concern that they will compromise on making improvement because they can't get to a perfect answer, and I think it's really important that we start to see some implementation, even if it's not perfect. And the question always has to be asked: what is the risk of this not being perfect? If it's a risk that there are a few businesses that slip through the net, that we're not catching and that we might pick up at some time later because we're not able to police them effectively, is that a greater risk than making a change that will actually change behaviour across a very large number of farm businesses? So, those are the questions that I think the task and finish group needs to be asking and making sure that they then come back with recommendations, with suggested changes in legislation. I'm really worried—actually, this is my biggest worry—that some of the changes that are most important will require perhaps some small changes in the legislation and that this will then create another significant delay, that the legislation—. We must be able to say, 'Okay, we're happy to make some changes to the legislation because we recognise that this work has been done to reduce the risk and we're confident that it will make an improvement.'

Lovely, thank you. I was told once that the pursuit of perfection ends up nowhere, sometimes. Exactly.

Always.

Can I say thank you very much for the session today? It's been very, very useful. I know it's helped me no end. I have read your review back to front on a number of occasions when I've sat in different portfolios, but actually having you here explaining it is very, very useful. And I'm sure that Members have found it very useful as well. So, thank you very much for coming today and I hope you have a safe trip back as well. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. It's been a privilege. Thank you.

Thank you.