 Mae'r oeddion gynnwys gynhwys verseic pwynd i gyrwm geni'r awmddial i'r troiail mwy. Mae'r oeddion gynnwys gynhwys gynhwys. Annosead, Maureys, ennillion. Megyn Gallacher yw y glipsyn am hyn. Yn glipsyn am hyn, ynghylch ar hyn o'i rhywbeth, o unig o'ch parlyfyn o'r dweud yng Nghymru. Yn amser wnaethしwyddoedd yn i gael i chi'ch wathio i gael i gael i gyfwrdd gael ar y dweud y dyma, ond o'ch gael o'i gael yn ddechrau. Yn y gweithfyniad ar gyfer yr ysgolwyd yma yng Nghymru, yn ystod 11 ar gyfer ar gael a chael i gael i gael i gael i'ch gael. Mae unig o'ch dyma'r ysgolwyd yma yn ddechrau gyd mwyn ddod ei wedi chi'n gofyn ni gwybod a'r tym ni'n gwybod. Can I firstly ask you, Presiding Officer, similar to my colleague Jeremy Balfour's point of order, whether any parliamentary processes exist, which include impact assessments on the effects of the scheduling of new business on new parents? I ask this because at the close of last term several MSPs stood down citing a possibility of working here while raising a young family and I fear that matters are getting worse. Secondly, can I ask you whether it is your that it would be possible within parliamentary processes for this week's stage 3 amendment consideration to have been split into three sessions with the final debate on the gender recognition reform bill being moved into the first week back in January, which, currently, has a blank slot on Tuesday 10th. Thank you. I thank Ms Gallacher for her point of order, and the case that some of the matters that the defending units are not matters for standing orders and therefore are not matters for me to rule on from the chair. As I have said to Mr Balfour, there will be breaks built into this afternoon. The Parliamentary Bureau is the forum that decides business for the Parliament, the cross party parliamentary bureau, but we have not yet got to the point O'r gall Tool plant oedd meisgalt duo plant y ma syl침 gafodd. Mary America rhaile ddigitul ar cyfnodos ar y dyfodol o'i honi gwneud am ymgynrayu. today and at the moment it doesn't appear to be particularly full given I know how many people are looking to get into proceedings. I thank Ms Webber for her point, which is not a matter that I would normally rule on from the chair. I am aware that tickets have been allocated and that our visitor services colleagues will be dealing with this matter at this moment. The point of order is that point of order is considered here by Pauline Mc розart and I want to raise a point of order in relation to the groupings, can you just advise me whether I should do that now or would it be after this particular debate? I just wanted to make sure that you knew that I was going to raise it. Thank you, Ms McNeill. I would suggest that we take that point of order later when we reach that point in the proceedings. We will now carry on with the proceedings. I call on Graham Simpson to speak to and move amendment 7320.2. I agree with everything that has been said by Mr Burnett, Mr Balfour and other colleagues about the proceedings today. I will move the amendment in my name, which colleagues have now had the chance to read. It is an amendment to the business motion and it calls for a statement tomorrow on the strategic transport projects review number two. This was issued by the Scottish Government at the end of the week, nearly two weeks ago. There has been no parliamentary time allocated to it so far, no debate, no questions, nothing. Yet this eagerly awaited document could have far-reaching consequences. We should, as a Parliament, expect to have statements on important matters such as this as soon as the documents are issued. There is simply no good reason for the Government to avoid being questioned on STPR2 unless, of course, they do not fancy the undoubtedly tough grilling they would get. Yes, from me and others. To say that STPR2 is a damp squib is a massive understatement. If you live in the south west and we are hoping to get some good news on upgrading the A75 or the A77, then you are still missing. If you wanted to find out when the A9 would be fully dualled between Perth and Inverness, then this document is not for you, I am afraid. You would think it might be. There were lots of warm words that offered cold comfort for communities the length and breadth of Scotland. If you rely on Scotland's ageing ferry fleet, there is nothing for you in STPR2. There are plenty of ifs, butts and maybes, but no firm commitments to build bridges and tunnels or improve ports. There is no ferry replacement plan. We must wait for that, I suppose. There are the usual platitudes, of course, about wanting to cut car miles by a fifth within seven years, but just how that is going to be achieved is anyone's guess. You certainly will not discover the answers from this document. On railways, we have conflicting statements. The document says that the plan includes the following statement in relation to transport. By 2032, we will have decarbonised our passenger railways. Then it goes on to say that by 2032, Scotland's passenger rail services will be considerably decarbonised with just a few years to go until they are fully decarbonised, not the same thing. The point is, all this gives MSPs much to chew over, but with no chance to question the Minister. Instead, we have the farce of this week, and we have been through already a potential midnight sitting tonight—another late one tomorrow. We should be having statements on things like STPR2 and dealing with important matters like that that affect all our constituents and all our constituencies. I rise to request that tomorrow's business be adjusted to include a ministerial statement on the Government's biodiversity strategy, which was laid in Parliament on 13 December 2022. For the benefit of the chamber, that is the amendment that I have lodged. This strategy is incredibly timely, given that just yesterday at COP 15, the Biodiversity Summit, which many worry too often plays second fiddle to the climate conference COP, a deal was sealed on a new global biodiversity framework. Some have called it a paris moment for nature. Nations adopted four goals and 23 targets for 2030 to protect our lands, our coasts and our inland waters. The loss of species and degradation of our natural environment is an existential threat to humanity, which requires that we take urgent and transformative action. Indeed, Minister Lorna Slater states at the beginning of the biodiversity strategy that is an emergency that requires an emergency response. Indeed, it does, and that is why we must hear a ministerial statement without delay, noting that it is already a week old and that waiting several weeks for recess fails to recognise the importance of the strategy. It is important that the strategy is put into context. Scottish Forestry only created 9,500 hectares of new woodland last year against the Scottish Government's target of 13,500 for 2021-22. The Government's State of Nature Scotland report states that species abundance has shown a marked and continual decline in the past 10 years, and more generally, 49 per cent of species have decreased. The ferret just reported a year ago that 531 habitats and 603 species in Scotland are in poor condition, including island and upland habitats. In decline include the Scottish Wildcat, the Hedgehog, the Capper Caley and the Arctic Skewer. The net zero committee heard just this morning from the climate change committee on the importance of peatland restoration, yet the Government's target of 20,000 hectares per year was missed by well over 10,000 hectares. In that context, the biodiversity strategy is key. We heard from the climate change committee's report and their evidence this morning that data monitoring and proper planning are imperative to achieving what we all want. It is vital that ministers appear before this Parliament so MSPs can interrogate the monitoring and evaluation framework that will be used to check when meeting our biodiversity targets, to ensure that we see how stakeholder engagement will be carried out and the importance of engaging the public in buying into the biodiversity strategy, because that is key to successful outcomes. Of course, whether the priority actions set out for 2030 are the most appropriate for achieving our biodiversity goals. Whilst I appreciate that we are in a tight timescale before the Christmas recess, the biodiversity and nature crisis will not wait, nor should we. I respectfully ask Parliament to grant me a ministerial statement on the biodiversity strategy tomorrow, and therefore I move the amendment in my name. I call on Stephen Kerr to speak to a move amendment 7320.4. Last week, we had a plethora of annual statistics released about Scotland's education system. Those statistics, I believe, ought to have been a focus of the business of this Parliament last week, but because they could cause all of us to sit up and take notice. We should have had the opportunity, I believe, to have heard last week from the cabinet secretary, but we did not. I tried every way in which I knew how to get this issue into the business papers of Parliament, but it was unsuccessful. We have just had a topical question that was answered, at least by the minister, in relation to some of the evidence that has been delivered through this statistical release, namely that we have fewer teachers and more pupils and therefore greater class sizes. As a consequence of the budget on top of that, we are looking at councils now talking about having shorter periods, shorter school days, shorter school weeks, and there is the question of the diminishing range of subject choice that is available to our young people in secondary schools. On top of that, as I have already mentioned, there is the question of the rising class sizes, as ratios are ditched for financial expediency in some part, but largely through the neglect of the Scottish Government. As has also been mentioned, there is grave concern among teachers about a number of issues, not least of which is the level of classroom violence that they encounter, and teachers ought not to have to worry about their safety in the classroom. I would say, Presiding Officer, that if we are not focused as a Parliament on the quality of our children's education and the clear issues that we are facing in the education system, especially in the aftermath of the pandemic, then all I can say is that we ought to be. That is why I want a statement, a ministerial statement, inserted into the business of this chamber tomorrow, so that the Government can come to this Parliament in the form of the Cabinet Secretary or a minister and be scrutinised on the basis of the data that we now are in possession of, the decline in the number of teachers in our schools and other data that has been released through the summary statistics for schools in Scotland 2022. As I say, sadly, the sum total of the data does not make pretty reading, but that perhaps explains why the Scottish Government has been so reluctant to come to this chamber and to make a statement. It might also explain why the Scottish Government has removed Scotland from international league tables for education, because I am afraid that those league tables and the limited data that we have available to us will undoubtedly show and indeed show that the SNP has mismanaged our education system, and there is a need for greater scrutiny of this policy area, perhaps in any other policy area. However, I do frankly worry that there is worse to come because of the budget and because of the commentary that there has been plenty of in the media about the consequences that flow from this budget. There is going to be another round of real-terms cuts to local government and this will undoubtedly have an impact on the education system, which is a big ticket item for every local authority, and there will be an impact as well on extracurricular activities, which add so much to children's experience at school. In conclusion, Scottish education used to be the envy of the world, but the limited data that we have available to us now shows that there has been 15 years of mismanagement at the hands of this Government. Many of us in this place believe that Scotland's children and young people deserve better, and that is why it is imperative that the SNP Government make a statement about the curriculum for excellence data and that that should happen tomorrow, as I am suggesting, so that we can begin a more serious look at the statistics in the context of the work of this Parliament, which is fundamentally why the people of Scotland elect us. I now call on George Adam to respond on behalf of the parliamentary bureau. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On behalf of the parliamentary bureau, just to say to a number of colleagues, perhaps if they had spoken to their business manager and put some of those points across, he would have been able to argue that point at the bureau, which is the place, obviously, for us to have these discussions in an open and frank manner. With that in mind, I want to stand by the business programme that we agreed earlier today at the bureau, and I would suggest that we carry on that way. Sorry, I will take intervention from Mr Neil Bibby. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. The minister will be aware that we have called for a number of statements, including on STPR2 and educational attainment, and I put on record again our support for those, and I hope that the Government will bring them forward early in the new year. We have been clear that the debate should not be curtailed in the gender recognition reform bill, and I have indeed ensured that the bill was delayed to this week, originally scheduled to be held over two days, and the final day debate was doubled in length following our requests. The Conservatives, meanwhile, say that they want extra debate time on this, but are evidently now wasting time while we should be scrutinising that legislation. As I said before, we do not wish to curtail debate on this, and we have never at any stage. On that issue, does the minister agree with my understanding that the Presiding Officer would normally allow every member who wishes to speak the opportunity to do so in legislation? I believe that the minister mentioned during the meeting how she was of the mind that she was going to take as many people as possible to ensure that everybody gets their opportunity to say their peace during this passing of legislation, as is the case normally. However, with regard to Mr Bibby's questions on statement, Mr Bibby quite lightly worked as a business manager through the business bureau, and we found a way to find some common ground to bring those statements at a later date, as we agreed. Presiding Officer, that is the way that we work within this Parliament. Presiding Officer, can I ask you advice on how a member or minister might correct the record? I think that the correspondence with my position at the bureau and a very clearly documented email correspondence between ourselves would be contrary to what the minister has suggested that we have not been seeking to improve the timetable for this bill. Perhaps the Presiding Officer could remind the minister of how he might correct the record, because he has still failed to come to the chamber where he misled it the previous time, where he said that the decision was unanimous. I am not sure if the minutes have been published of the committee, of the bureau, but when they are, they clearly show that that decision was not unanimous, and I trust that Presiding Officer will be able to instruct the minister accordingly. Thank you. The content of members' contributions is not ordinarily a matter for the chair. Members will be aware of the corrections mechanism and how to use that, should they wish to correct anything that has been recorded on the official report. We now move to putting the question, and the question is that amendment 7320.1, in the name of Alexander Burnett, which seeks to amend business motion 7320, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, on changes to this week's business, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to vote and there will be a short suspension, a brief pause to allow members to access digital voting.