Mr. P.J. McCarthy:

That is a fair point. If we choose to pursue an industry-led initiative, led by the private sector, such as we are doing on biomethane, and come to the Government with key, specific requests without recourse to Exchequer funding, it is an opportunity for the Government to work with industry. When I say "industry", I mean the full supply chain. There are regulatory requirements for the pillar industries to report under the Paris Agreement. That filters down to the producers. It is in nobody's interests to greenwash, whitewash or misrepresent the position. We have moved away from the era of box-ticking exercises. We are advocating for measurement reporting and verification, which is the gold standard that keeps everybody honest. That would mean everybody ensures they produce net environmental gains. The economics will be a secondary consideration but these things are interlinked. Sustainable food production goes hand in hand with AD, the bioeconomy, biofertiliser and carbon farming. To answer the Chairman's question, annual reviews can be useful. Natural England in the UK is analysing whether any of its initiatives are showing net biodiversity gains. We are looking at the national biodiversity policy and strategy, and a nature positive system. Many lessons can be learned from other jurisdictions.

The projects must be reviewed, perhaps on an annual or two-year basis, and the net biodiversity gain assessed. That is already being done in the UK through Natural England. There are ways to stitch in a review process. There are ways to monitor and review. The danger is that we review too much. There is a five-year period of accounting for carbon farming. I suggest we start with a five-year review in that regard. Such a review would examine the scientific net gain of carbon in the soil. If we do that, our soil quality and health will improve, as will our biodiversity, air and water quality, and our sustainable food production. There is a danger that we are going to get stuck in the mud without saying we have an overall plan. We can consider reviews, and have done so.

The RHO has an annual review mechanism that considers a contract for difference and the cost of energy production for biomethane. There are other already clear criteria and regulatory structures under the renewable energy directive, the Paris Agreement and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, guidelines. We are not reinventing the wheel. Let us not burden the industry with administration before we even start.