Chamber and committees

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.

I was listening to that exchange, and I sympathise with what the deputy convener said, but we had a citizens panel on climate change—sorry if I have got the terminology wrong, convener—and the panel said that if they read everything about climate change only in the newspapers and the media, it seems like an insurmountable challenge and they feel very negative about it. However, when they engage with practical things on the ground across Scotland, they are quite upbeat and positive about what is happening.

I understand the nervousness about providing additional detail and modelling work because, let us be honest, certain individuals, groups and politicians would just look for any flaws in that modelling work in order to rip it to shreds, rather than be fair-minded about it. That is not a reason not to publish that information, but I can see why there might be a nervousness about doing so. I think that there is a balance to be struck here, cabinet secretary, and I ask you to reflect on what more information you can give on the modelling work, including where the uncertainties are. For example, you might, in that modelling work, have to predict what you think UK Government investment will look like in certain areas, when you actually have no clue what such investment looks like from one week to the next, let alone what it will look like in 10 or 15 years’ time.

If you are going to provide more information, that would be welcome, but you will have to think carefully about what you provide to us. That is not a reason not to share it, but you should be a bit careful about how, and in what fashion, you share it.

I wonder whether you can reflect on those comments, cabinet secretary.

Thank you for putting that on the record. I will ask my next question shortly, but, before I do so, I want to make some comments that do not require a response. Yesterday, I was at Glasgow Kelvin College, which is really enthused about the budget settlement. People spoke about being able to move quickly to meet market demand in the area and about short-term capital investment to allow the college to grow and expand what it is doing as it pivots towards areas where businesses are looking for a flexible approach to training and skills. The work that has been done is really welcome, but there is a wee bitty more to do to get there. It is a transition period for that sector, of course.

I will ask about what the Economy and Fair Work Committee has told us in its very welcome scrutiny in relation to some of this stuff. It talks about a “direct, participative role” for key groups, such as trade unions and professional bodies. Maybe you can offer a brief answer to that, cabinet secretary. Can you offer reassurance that, rather than just reacting to events, such groups will be part of the story?

Okay, thanks. That response is reasonable, but I think that the point has been well made by others about making the plan accessible, tangible and meaningful to individuals.

I would hate to incur the wrath of the Scottish Youth Parliament, but most young people will not be engaged with the Scottish Youth Parliament, as it would acknowledge. We just need to make the plan accessible to all. I commend the Scottish Youth Parliament for its scrutiny role and for trying to represent young people, but there is a wider group out there who will not want to be involved in any scrutiny. They will just want to understand the plan and want it to be meaningful to them. I will leave that sitting there.