Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay—that gives a degree of reassurance.

Earlier, Mr Ruskell raised conditions of carriage. In a previous session, I remember that I told you, minister, about having read First Bus’s conditions of carriage. I will not repeat the contents, but I wonder whether the argument is a bit of a red herring. In my experience as a constituency MSP dealing with antisocial behaviour on buses, I rarely have discussions about conditions of carriage.

First Bus has been excellent in relation to routes where there could be issues, and a bit of good‑quality driver training and driver continuity—so that the same drivers are on the same routes consistently, are experienced, and know what to expect and how to handle it—has made a real difference. First Bus has also delivered good driver training and built good partnerships with Police Scotland and with local organisations in an area where there could be pinch points and specific localised issues with antisocial behaviour. There are key risk times in the day and night when antisocial behaviour is most likely to flare up, and improvements could be made in key areas in order to deal with such behaviour at bus stops, but at no point do we say, “Let’s get the conditions of carriage out.”

The reason that I put that on the record is that this is fundamentally about sharing best practice—reflecting Mr Ruskell’s important point about how we deter antisocial behaviour, which is not age‑specific—and about how bus companies and local partners can do so to reduce and tackle antisocial behaviour in ways that go beyond simply withdrawing the bus pass. Withdrawing passes is important, but the issue is also the wider environment. Is there any on-going work on that?

Good morning, again, minister—it is just about morning still.

Those were really interesting and important exchanges that you have had with Monica Lennon and the deputy convener, and I have written down the phrase “independent from ministerial decision making”. You were asked to make some quite specific judgment calls by Douglas Lumsden with regard to instances in which a bus pass might be removed, and you were then asked to confirm the removal of a bus pass in respect of some quite disturbing crimes.

I felt that, during those exchanges, the point that you were trying to make, without actually spelling it out, was that you could not confirm those things, because that would mean waiving your commitment to ensuring that the decision making of Transport Scotland was independent from ministerial interference. It would be helpful if you could say whether that was or was not the case.

How would our successor committee have a conversation with you about that this time next year? You might tell us in February 2026 that the emerging priorities are X, Y and Z. After a year has passed, how can we find out how you have got on by looking at the data and the measurements? I think that you are saying that the local action plans are separate from the national priorities.

That is all very general. Do you want to come in, Professor Higgins?

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?