Chamber and committees

I absolutely appreciate that, but that is where what we have set out in the route map comes in. I am not focusing on the rural support plan at the moment because, as John Kerr has outlined, a lot of what is in the route map will be part of that. There is information there, and more information will be coming along the timeline that we have set out. The rural support plan will not change what we have in the route map; it is about bringing together the different pieces and showing how we will deliver on the vision and against our objectives.

Another important point that you have raised, but which I have not touched on, relates to monitoring and evaluation against the objectives that we have set out. That will be built into how we move forward, because we need to know that we are improving and to find a way of measuring and evaluating that so that we know that we are delivering on the bill’s objectives. That will, of course, be embedded in the work that we are taking forward.

Again, I do not know whether the committee has any particular comments or suggestions to make on that. I believe that the matters to be considered, which we have set out in section 3, cover what we need that to do, but, again, I ask the committee whether its members have any particular suggestions to make or whether they feel that anything is missing from the list that should be considered but has not been.

I want to address your first point about the list of matters to be considered and highlight and emphasise the fact that all the areas that you have mentioned are hugely important. More policies and legislation are coming down the line that are closely interlinked with agriculture and the future framework that we will have. I want to reassure the committee that we are considering all the policies that you have outlined, some of which are mentioned in the policy memorandum. The fact is that we must adhere to legislation that is already in place, and our rural support plan proposals are not being developed in isolation, without any consideration being given to those areas, given that, as I have mentioned, so many of them are integral to what we are doing.

I am sorry—what was the second matter that you raised?

It is important to have it for exactly for that reason. It is about ensuring that we are looking at those matters and that they feature as part of the rural support plan.

If we look at the matters that are set out, we see that we have our objectives, the climate change plan, agriculture, forestry and rural land use. From the evidence that you have taken and from some of the discussion that we have had today, we know that there are very specific things that people would like to be included in there. Of course, we take a lot of those matters into consideration—and we have to, where that is legally binding and where we are working across other areas of policy. However, it is important for us to at least set out the matters that we would be looking to include as part of the plan rather than not do that.

The natural resources part of the portfolio helps to fund areas such as wildlife management, biodiversity and other areas within that. Simon Fuller could probably elaborate further on areas within that specific budget line, but that is largely what it covers.

That is largely because it more accurately reflects the spend within that element. The key point that I forgot to mention is the Atlantic rainforest, which Simon Fuller has just pointed out, and that is where we are continuing to invest. Parts of the budget have been underspent in the past, so what is set out in the published budget more accurately reflects what the spend will be within that area.

I certainly hope that we will reach that target, and we are doing everything we can to ensure that we do. If we look at the average restoration rates over the past few years, up until 2021, the average rate was about 1,500 hectares. From 2021 onwards, we have seen big increases in the level of restoration. That goes back to my earlier point about us trying to scale up the industry, which is still in its infancy. After 2020, we saw the restoration rate increase to 6,000 hectares. Then, in 2022-23, it was 7,500 hectares, which is a 35 per cent increase. This year, we are on track to see that increase further to 10,000 hectares.

We are moving in the right direction on restoration rates, and continuing with the investment is vital in providing confidence for the industry. We will continue that funding so that the industry can continue to grow and so that we can identify and deal with some of the issues.

I am sorry, but some of the figures that you have given for what we have already restored do not sound correct to me, although I do not know whether you are including this current year.

Ultimately, the commitment was for £250 million over 10 years to restore 250,000 hectares of degraded peatland. It is not possible for me to say at the moment what that will look like in five or six years. What I am trying to do today is highlight the importance of that continued investment, so that that trajectory can continue in the coming years.

Can you hear me okay now?