 I remind members that social distancing measures are in place in the chamber and around the Holyrood campus. I ask that members take care to observe those measures, including when entering and exiting the chamber. Please only use the aisles and walkways to access your seat and when moving around the chamber. The next item of business is an urgent question, and I invite Gillian Mackay to ask the urgent question. I thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body for what reason it applied for designated status for the Scottish Parliament under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and whether it will publish the background paper upon which this decision was based. On behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, I welcomed the opportunity to correct some of the significant misunderstandings and inaccuracies regarding our decision to seek designated status for the parliamentary state that has been reported and commented upon. The SPCB takes its responsibility to provide a safe and welcoming parliamentary state very seriously. As you all know, the Parliament welcomes and facilitates thousands of protests all year round as an essential part of the expression of democracy in Scotland, and I categorically assure Parliament and the public that this will not change. Corporate Body members considered a paper and received a comprehensive briefing from Police Scotland and had an opportunity for full discussion. The decision to seek designated status was unanimous and no member requested that the decision be put to a vote. Applying for designated status, we are not seeking to curb or limit protests. The reason for applying for designated status is to give the Parliament the means to address protest by individuals where they try to prevent Parliament from meeting to carry out its essential role, who seek to interfere with the rights of others to engage at Holyrood or whether actions make it unsafe for others. Unfortunately, Parliament has experienced this kind of disruption impacting on its democratic role. In taking the decision to apply for designated status, the SPCB has listened closely to police advice. We have considered the experience of other parliaments such as Westminster and Wales where the same measure is available. After very careful consideration, we were assured that this measure offers additional support, which will only be used in a small number of the most exceptional circumstances, which cannot be resolved by the usual means via our on-site security and Police Scotland. In practice, we are assured that the corporate body will be consulted and engaged on any circumstances where the designation will be used. As the chamber knows, the corporate body does not publish papers that include security advice. Colleagues will recognise a significant concern around the changing status of the Scottish Parliament estate from 1 October, which will criminalise some forms of peaceful protest, as we have seen elsewhere, such as reading out the names of dead soldiers. Unfortunately, statements from the SPCB have failed to recognise that. I know many MSPs have joined protests outside this Parliament, as I have, for a whole range of issues. Protest is a fundamental part of our democracy, and the Scottish Parliament should be open, accessible and welcoming of peaceful protest. Can I urge the SPCB to reconsider that decision, which I do not believe can be justified? I will make it very clear that this measure will not criminalise protesters who come to put their case outside Parliament. I myself have been on marches and demonstrations all my life, and I would not support measures to curtail them. They are a vital part of our democracy, and I fully support people's right to protest at this Parliament. That is about protecting the functions of the Parliament, our ability to conduct business, the health and safety of all who come there here, including our Parliament's security staff, and being cognisant of the impact on the public purse of the current limited options that are available to us. I also have concerns about how the process has been conducted. The minutes of the SPCB's meeting on 24 June note that the SPCB discussed the matter and highlighted the concerns that were raised by Maggie Chapman MSP. The minutes make no mention of consulting MSPs nor the public, and in fact MSPs were not even informed of the change until legislation had already been laid in the Commons. Does the member not accept that the controversy around this matter could have been avoided if the SPCB had adopted a more transparent approach, in line with the Scottish Parliament's key principles of accountability and open participation? Thank you. The member will know that members of the corporate body have a responsibility to make decisions on behalf of Parliament in certain circumstances. That is often where it includes the security of the Parliament and the security device that we receive from Police Scotland. We had a very thorough debate at the corporate body. There was no member who proposed that we have a vote. We listened very carefully to the arguments that were made. We expressed some of the concerns that have been raised by members, and we were satisfied with the answers that we received that this was the correct course of action to take. I thank the member for her clarification on the matter. I was dismayed to see that she was a member of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body that was guilty of passing on the kind of misinformation that we have seen in the media and elsewhere. Does the member agree with me that, as parliamentarians, we have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that the public is not misled? I am pleased to be able to give clarity to some of the reports that happened over the weekend to make it clear that it is not about criminalising protests that take place at Parliament. Members should avoid making misleading comments in public. We have a responsibility to ensure that the information that we provide is clear and accurate. MSPs received an email from the Presiding Officer on Thursday explaining the decision of the corporate body. Again, I echo Mr Cus' conclusions that it is a good opportunity to clarify the situation that arose over the weekend and possibly a situation where a better communication at the start might have avoided that. I know that that is challenging because much of the evidence that you receive from the police is confidential and rightly so and you make those decisions. However, could you possibly give an example of the sort of situation where that would apply rather than to people who want to gather outside to have their views known to us in here? I thank the member for the question. It is difficult to provide an example that links directly in the chamber this afternoon, but if members reflect on instances that the Parliament had to deal with in recent years where sometimes there has been a protracted solution to situations and it has often been a costly solution, that this designation would help in those situations. I am going to pause proceedings for the front benches to change when we move on to the next item of business.