Seòmar agus comataidhean

That answer does help, and I hope that my line of questioning will help in relation to precise examples that our successor committee might ask about next year.

I sometimes go on to the internet—which is not always very reliable—to cross-reference what it says on NatureScot’s website. It is said that the nature emergency and the impact of non-invasive species can have an annual economic cost of tens of millions of pounds, or £100 million-plus. I do not understand how that works in practice, but someone has quantified the economic impact, and the primary nature impact is obviously substantial.

I would like to see specific examples—such examples might exist; I might just not have done enough preparation for the meeting—that quantify the investment that has been made and the action that has been taken. I know that this is your field, Professor Higgins, but what you do will not always work. You will get some things right, and some bits will not go so well. You will learn from that, and a new strategy will emerge. Our committee would like to touch, feel and smell some of that work, so that we can scrutinise it.

You say that there has been greater targeting, which has been a success. To ask the question another way, are you able to quantify that? You assert that there has been greater targeting and that that has been successful. I have no reason to doubt that, but what is your baseline? How do we know that there has been greater targeting, case studies aside? How is that quantified?

I do. I want to ask about your biodiversity delivery plan, which mentions that there will be a new action plan on invasive species, which came up a little bit earlier.

I had a look on the internet to find out what previous action plans looked like. I think that the previous one was the Scottish invasive species initiative, which ran to 2023—I do not know whether there was something after that. Listed as priorities were giant hogweed, Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam, American skunk cabbage, white butterbur and American mink. Is the new plan out yet? What are the priorities?

I am fine with that. I am trying to understand whether there has been a gap. Did SISI run beyond 2023? Your website says that phase 1 concluded in 2023.

Some species that are noted on your website are not listed as part of the project, such as the signal crayfish, the carpet sea squirt and the good old rhododendron. How does NatureScot determine which invasive species become priorities? What action do you take? How can we, as a parliamentary committee, measure the impact that NatureScot has had?

The danger of being asked a question at the end of an evidence session is that it gives the member time to look online for additional information. That is good, because it leads to a more informal line of questioning. I would like to be able to go beneath some of the headline narrative to look at actions and quantify what has been done.

My final question is on a topic that might have been partly covered. The biodiversity delivery plan set out that, by 2025, NatureScot would develop an approach to targeted peatland restoration investment. We have heard about that already. Are you able to say anything about the outcome of that work? What opportunities are there for peatland restoration funding to be better targeted at climate and nature goals? There are some good examples out there of peatland restoration simultaneously boosting farming opportunities and nature restoration. In other words, it is not an either/or. Can you provide any more details?

I have no more questions.

My question will be very brief, convener, because I feel that we are drifting somewhat from the instrument before us.

I ask the minister to exercise a bit of caution in any initial thoughts on how we could better use that quantum of cash. We have already had a bid from Mr Ruskell, understandably, on conditionality on rural services, and from Ms Lennon on jobseekers and colleges. Once a young person no longer qualifies for concessionary travel, lots of other things will be put into the mix, including regionalised aspects of the cash that goes to bus companies in Strathclyde and other regions. Strathclyde currently has franchising, for example. Before we come to a decision, we could take stock, more generally, of that quantum of cash, and work in partnership with regional transport authorities—perhaps giving them a bit more power. I ask the minister to be slightly cautious and to carry out a wider review, without any preconceived outcomes.

That is helpful. Some young people want to be all over the detail, while some just want a broad-brush summary, and we should make sure that we do not lump them all together as one group.

That is helpful.

In my final question, I will again reflect the work of other committees, so I thank the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee and the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, which have made points about how we ensure that we get correct evidence about community benefit.

Will the final climate change plan set out a clear approach to defining, delivering and evidencing community benefit from energy developments, including how communities will be involved in co-designing initiatives and having meaningful input into energy developments rather than those developments simply going ahead, but with a wee bit of community benefit tacked on at the end in a sort of tick-box approach? That would deliver more substantial benefits for communities.