Seòmar agus comataidhean

Could that be unsettling? If colleagues see that a post is not being filled, does that not automatically create a pressure?

Thank you very much.

Okay.

I want to briefly go back to the 5 per cent vacancy target. Does that in effect reinforce a culture of change in the organisation? Does the fact that staff might be looking at posts that are not being filled prompt conversations around their own workloads and efficiencies? How does that play out in relation to the overall culture of the organisation and the other projects that you are working on around audit modernisation? It feels as if a lot of change is happening.

Thank you for that. I want to move on to talk about the changes that have taken place, particularly the four whole-time equivalent posts that have been removed from the staffing baseline. I want to better understand how that is being absorbed across the organisation.

My understanding is that those posts relate to professional trainees. Will you say a bit more about that? Moreover, given the pressures on the organisation and on your objectives—for example, you have talked about getting back on track to reach target levels—how does the decision to remove those posts link to that?

The message that I am getting is that that broad pipeline of apprenticeships and graduate and professional trainee posts is consistent, with some variation from year to year as a result of changes within the organisation, promotions and everything else.

Both of the amendments in this group relate to delivering nature networks. As the Government rightly highlights, nature networks deliver multiple benefits beyond biodiversity: they store carbon; they mitigate floods; they regulate temperature in our towns, villages and cities; and they improve our mental and physical health. They are a keystone of the Scottish biodiversity strategy, because fragmentation of nature is a key driver of its decline.

Amendment 76 would introduce a requirement for ministers to report on progress towards the establishment of nature networks and on their effectiveness. Embedding a reporting requirement at ministerial level would ensure co-ordinated delivery that complements the bottom-up approach at council level. We are all aware of the excellent work that councils are doing on the ground to establish nature networks and to embed them in local planning. Without amendment 76, we risk nature networks being overlooked. The Government has set ambitious goals for the planning system to deliver positive effects for biodiversity and for private finance to support the ambitions of the biodiversity strategy, but, unless a strategically co-ordinated pipeline of projects is identified through nature networks, we risk missing those opportunities.

Amendment 77 would add a requirement for the forthcoming land use strategy to consider the ecological connectivity that is delivered through nature networks. The land use strategy provides the context for the major land use decisions that are needed to meet Scotland’s climate ambitions. Given that a key principle of the bill is the need to tackle climate and nature together, it makes sense to explicitly include ecological connectivity in the land use strategy. The strategy also underpins regional land use partnerships, which engage communities in shaping the land use changes that are required to meet climate targets. Elevating nature to the same level as climate in those discussions would ensure that communities are involved in the decisions, especially those on nature networks.

I move amendment 76.

I do not have an answer to that question, but we could certainly explore that in discussions with the minister.

I think that there is scope to reflect on the situation ahead of stage 3. Would you like to come back in, minister?

I am recalling the committee sessions that we had earlier this week on the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill. I believe that you committed to lodging an amendment that would help to make more explicit the options available to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in pursuing a prosecution under ecocide law or under section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. Can you say more about what that amendment might look like? Would it have any bearing on Ross Greer’s amendment 300, which is focused on ensuring that the 2014 act is in line with the environmental crime directive?

I am going to continue in the same vein as earlier this morning, because it is important that we take the opportunity that is offered by the bill to take action to improve biodiversity. That is why we are seeing so many amendments at this point that are rooted in a lot of the frustration of members that practical action has not been taken to protect biodiversity and restore the environment in Scotland.

I will try to be brief in my comments. Four years ago, in its programme for government, the Scottish Government pledged to

“phase out the use of peat in horticulture.”

That included a ban in order to protect peatlands and

“to restore the health and vitality of the natural systems that sustain us.”

That pledge remains unfulfilled, and about 1,000 hectares of our peatlands are actively dug up every year. That is enough peat to fill 68 Olympic-sized swimming pools. As we know, peat forms at the very slow rate of about 1mm per year, so it takes 1,000 years to form to a depth of 1m, but diggers can strip out the same amount of peat from the ground in just a couple of weeks. Peat is not therefore a resource that can be renewed within a human lifetime. Once it is gone, it is gone.

Amendment 32 is therefore about giving us the chance to change the fate of Scotland’s peatlands and to save the peat and carbon that they hold for future generations. I do not think that there is anything new in the amendments, and everybody in the room is probably in agreement with the policy intention, but there is a concern that it has not happened yet despite years of commitments.

Amendment 32 would insert a requirement for the Scottish Government to use powers that it already has via secondary legislation under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which is a part of the 1990 act that has already been used. The ban on single-use vapes follows those powers, and amendment 32 would follow a similar model. We have done this before. We have innovated in the Scottish Parliament to achieve things on a four-nations basis across the UK.

Scotland is not alone in its impatience about the lack of direction from the UK Government on this. The chair of the Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee at the Welsh Senedd recently wrote to urge the UK Parliament to increase pressure to get progress across the UK, and I understand that Northern Ireland has now committed to a firm date for the phasing out of the use of peat in horticulture. Within the devolved constitutional settlement, including Northern Ireland, nations are moving forward, setting dates and delivering action in this area. Why can we not do that in Scotland? I am sure that the minister will tell me why in a minute.

One of the stated objectives of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill is to cover key actions to deliver biodiversity targets, and this is a key action that is long overdue.

I note that Rachael Hamilton has lodged a number of detailed amendments to amendment 32, and I will listen carefully to her unpack those in a minute. I respect her work as chair of the cross-party group on horticulture. We will see where we get to, but I am looking for an acknowledgement that action is long overdue, that there is a pathway to banning peat extraction and that the Government is prepared to take that action and we can move forward in the months to come.

I will leave my comments there.

I move amendment 32.