Seòmar agus comataidhean

You have probably guessed the final part of my question. You say that you need a bit more time. The Scottish Government is committed to reviewing all of this in the round, but it cannot do that unless it is confident that it has robust baseline data. Quite rightly, you need a bit more time, but the committee needs to plan how we wish to scrutinise all of that. What do you think “a bit more time” looks like? When will things have stabilised so that we have that baseline data?

I apologise, Professor Roy: I am almost treating you as though you are a politician, which you are absolutely not. If I had asked this question of a minister or a cabinet secretary, invariably my colleague would have said, “The financial year 2024-25.”

Once Social Security Scotland gives outturn figures for all of that and they can be verified, validated and analysed, are you good to go on this? If so, what is the timescale for that? We would ask that question of the politicians, but the politicians would have to ask others. I feel as though we are asking the experts directly.

I am sorry, Dr Brown—I am not seeking to target you in relation to this—but will that be measured in the same way if there is a project in Aberdeenshire or Dumfries, for example? If different methodologies are used and there are different agreed outcomes in each area, how do we have a national strategy and how do we report on the national plan?

I have a small follow-up question, if there is time, convener.

You go first.

I have a follow-up question. I see that Glasgow City Council has 37 species action plans, and I know that it is trying to expand its nature networks, but I do not know whether anyone is measuring the impact of those on biodiversity. Clearly, you would expect the impact to be positive, but is anyone measuring the impact using an agreed methodology?

I am going to talk about some of the blobs in my local area. We know that local authorities are tasked with expanding and enhancing nature networks by 2030, and there is a specific commitment for urban areas, which is obviously of interest to me as the MSP for Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn. I note that Glasgow is seeking to designate a further 250 hectares of nature reserve within the city. I will talk about two areas in particular, because they are in my constituency. First, the project at Hamiltonhill clay pits has been transformational for the local area, but was also carried out in partnership with wider urban regeneration, which is something that I want to raise with you. Secondly, Cadder Woods, which is also on the Forth and Clyde canal, was a dumping ground for old cars and was used for fly-tipping, but it has real biodiversity merit, as well as potentially being an asset for the local community.

Bruce Wilson and Dr Brown might be best placed to respond to these issues. The nature network commitment can have a dual purpose by boosting biodiversity, in the way that Mr Wilson was talking about, and by enhancing the local environment for communities. It is not about nature being over there; it is about having corridors for communities to enable them to enjoy the environment. How do we achieve that dual purpose in the strategy? More importantly, how can we monitor to make sure that the strategy is delivered and is not just about the blobs on the map that Mr Wilson talked about?

After I have asked my questions, I might ask you, convener, to work out who will answer, because that is challenging when I am not in the room.

I have been listening carefully to the evidence that we have received. A lot of this is process driven, but the delivery plan needs to identify meaningful and appropriate actions across key sectors, groups and regulatory areas. I am keen to know where the witnesses believe that that is contained in the draft delivery plan or what more could be done to make sure that it exists in the plan.

The key areas that I am thinking of are fishing, aquaculture, plastics and chemicals, and regional and community coastal partnerships. I acknowledge that, according to the Scottish Parliament information centre, there appear to be no actions in the delivery plan on marine renewables.

What is in the plan that can deliver identifiable, meaningful and appropriate action across key sectors? I want to be clear about what could work well and where the gaps are.

No, convener. That was genuinely helpful. I am conscious that this is a draft delivery plan and that witnesses will want to shape what the final delivery plan looks like. We are therefore hearing about things that are not in the plan and about mapping exercises and other matters. However, it is important for the committee to hear about what in the draft plan is welcome and could make meaningful change. We have got some of that, so I will not come back in.

Before the next witness comes in, I will check something. I do not have in-depth experience on the subject. Your response was quite process driven and was about mapping what should be in the plan. My question was about what is identifiable in the plan and what might be beneficial and achievable. I get that witnesses think that some things should be removed from the plan and others put in and that things need to be pulled together. I am talking in general terms when I ask the question. Is there anything identifiable in the plan that is of value and would be beneficial?