Seòmar agus comataidhean

The term “ring fenced” means that the money must be spent on those specific areas—that is, agriculture, agricultural support and marine funding. I do not know whether Craig Stewart has any specific points to make in that respect.

As for what will happen with funding, we have to continually monitor our budget throughout the year. Obviously, I cannot tell you at the moment what will come along—after all, we are just at the start of this year’s budget process—but there is no getting around the fact that we are in very challenging financial circumstances. There are difficult situations that we will have to look at in my portfolio—and, indeed, in other portfolios across Government, because we have to present a balanced budget—and I cannot say definitively that we will not be making any savings from or adjustments to ring-fenced funding here.

However, I come back to my earlier point that anything that might be offered from ring-fenced funding has to be returned to the portfolio in future years. Indeed, the £33 million that we have already discussed will be the subject of discussion with finance on when it will be returned to the portfolio.

I do not know whether Craig Stewart or George Burgess wants to come in.

The whole of the Scottish Government has to present a balanced budget. I reiterate what I have said previously about the decisions that we have to take in this portfolio, and in others across Government: we have to ensure that we have a balanced budget at the end of the day. That is incumbent on all of us and we all share that challenge. We had the emergency budget review last year because we had to take emergency measures to ensure that we were helping people and using resources as best as we could, especially as the cost crisis was affecting people in our communities.

Well, it does. In particular, the £33 million must be returned to the portfolio so the ring fencing does mean something.

Again, I cannot tell you what will be in the budget next year, because we have not started that process yet.

Again, because that relates to on-going court action, we are not able to comment on it.

I understand the point that you are trying to get to, but I hope that you understand why I would be uncomfortable about saying anything in that regard, given the action that is currently on-going. Once that action is complete, I will be happy to write to the committee with full information.

It probably comes back to the point that the convener raised at the start of the meeting. Unfortunately, some of these policy areas do not fit neatly in boxes, but we work collaboratively across the Government to address cross-cutting issues. That is the case right across my portfolio. We talked about peatland environment biodiversity earlier and community wealth building is exactly the same. As I say, communities have rights under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 so there is a strong link between that and our work on land reform. I engage with the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance and I will engage with the work that he is taking forward through the legislation when it is introduced, as well as through the review of the 2015 act. It is important that we do not work in silos. We need to make sure that we take a joined-up approach.

Are you talking in relation to the abandoned, neglected and detrimental land specifically?

The process for late applications was a key and important part of the legislation. As I said in a previous response, we must ensure that we get a balance, which is what the legislation tried to do. It gives communities the opportunity, in exceptional circumstances, to seek a transfer of land after the point of sale or transfer.

There are some key checks and balances within that. From the landowner’s perspective, there must be proof of community interest and the community must have a plan for the land. From the community perspective, landowners cannot sell or transfer land before the community has had the chance to register or express an interest. I believe that that balance is correct, but if the committee hears any evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to hear that information.

We know that more needs to be done to accelerate peatland restoration, but there are a number of challenges in that. First of all, there is only a short season in which the work can take place. There is also a challenge in skills capacity. I think that there were also challenges in the past in relation to the overall future commitment to funding, but—of course—we now have the 10-year funding commitment of £250 million.

There are a number of factors at play, but we are taking action to address the key bottlenecks. NatureScot is leading on a peatland skills action plan. We also have a delivery improvement plan to identify the key challenges and the actions that we will take to mitigate and address them.

To end my response on a positive note, I highlight that, even though the peatland restoration rate is not what we would like, and we know that we need to go further and do more, the trajectory is in the right direction. Our target this year, which we set out in the PFG, was to restore 10,700 hectares. That is a 40 per cent increase on the restoration rate that we saw in the previous year, in which 7,500 hectares were restored. Even those 7,500 hectares represent a 35 per cent increase on the previous year. Therefore, even though we are not where we need to be, the trajectory is strong and we are, because we know that we need to do more, taking action to address the challenges that we know exist.