 That concludes topical questions. We move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 7 3 2 0, in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on changes to this week's business, and I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, I'm moved. Thank you, Minister. I call on Alexander Burnett to speak to and move amendment 7 3 2 0.1. Presiding Officer, here we are then. After months of warnings from me and my party, which were largely ignored, we are now faced with a vote on a motion which goes to extraordinary length to keep a final vote on the gender bill before Christmas. This is the culmination of the many bureau meetings where I voiced my concerns and the minister in turn voiced excuse after excuse as to why the bill should be rushed. All to avoid some bad PR for the cabinet. I confess that despite all of the timetabling motions and the underhanded moves from the committee convener, who is of course an SNP MSP, I never actually thought we would reach a point where the choice between members was so blatant. You can support this motion and in doing so directly support the SNP's gleeful push to deny Parliament the scrutiny they were elected to provide, or you can take the correct path and support my amendment to give the bill adequate time to be considered properly. Last term, the SNP wouldn't have been able to get away with this, but now, with the Greens mindlessly nodding through every cynical political decision, they have shut down scrutiny on any legislation considered remotely controversial. Fireworks and pyrotechnics, the coronavirus bills, or the rent for these bills are name a few. It has now become the norm and sadly this Parliament, its MSPs and its officials appear to have accepted that. What a joke. A future version of this Parliament will have to spend a full term going back and repairing or repealing the rush legislation passed during the sorry stint of government. We should all be thoroughly ashamed of the example we are setting for the rest of the world of how not to do democracy. This is made even worse when you consider the kangaroo court that took place on Monday, where the SNP finally allowed evidence to be heard from a UN expert on violence against women and girls, but stacked the evidence session in their favour by re-inviting a Government-backing witness to. This witness had already given evidence, and I note that organisations and former MSPs have written to complain about being excluded from the process. Mr Burnett, if I might stop you for a second and ask you to take a seat, I would advise in the strongest possible terms that there is a code of conduct to which all MSPs are expected to adhere. We must treat all other MSPs with courtesy and respect, and I do object to language that suggests otherwise. The proceedings that took place on Monday evening were parliamentary proceedings, and I would ask you to continue being this in mind. I should point that a lot of members in the chamber have not had the opportunity to study the official report of that committee. I am not sure if it is even out yet, but there certainly has not been time for other members who were not attending that committee to have considered the evidence taken then. We should be doing the sensible thing, the mind-numbingly obvious thing, and pausing the bill to let committee examine it further and scheduling more than two days for consideration of these stage 3 amendments. Yes, even if that means that we delay the final vote until 2023. I have said it before and I will say it again. There is no good reason as to why this bill could not be finished in the new year. Sadly, though, the arbitrary completion deadline of Christmas appears to have been accepted by everyone else too. Other members of the bureau have supported the SNP's timetable multiple times. Labour voted against our sensible amendments that would have given more time to stage 2, which, by the way, might have meant that some of stage 3's 153 amendments would have been dealt with already. Presiding Officer, this Parliament's reputation is in free fall and we are fast approaching rock bottom. I truly believe that schools and universities will use this parliamentary term as a case study of what happens when an executive is allowed to go unchecked, unchecked by politicians, unchecked by officials and unchecked by everyone. But we can fix this. First and foremost, it needs a serious recognition that the Scottish Government does not respect this place. That was all too clear with last week's budget fiasco. They deliberately ignored you and will do it again. They will push you and this Parliament as far as they can until they are told not to. It is time to tell them not to and I move the amendment in my name. I seek your guidance. I have just heard today's business promises to go on late into the evening. For some colleagues, especially those with disabilities or caring duties, this is a long time to be required to be in one place. Some require to take medication at certain times, some require extra time for comfort breaks and some have care responsibilities that we are unable to attend to. As a Parliament, we have committed ourselves to be more inclusive and to encourage more people to stand. I was wondering if you could advise me as to whether a disability impact assessment has been carried out on today's timings and what advice you would have to those members who will struggle due to this extended sit-in. If no assessment had been carried out, could you please tell me why? Thank you. I thank Mr Balfour for his point of order. It is the case that standing orders for which I am responsible and the chair does not govern matters of health and safety in the Parliament. However, I would say that I note the members' concerns, which are on the record. There will be comfort breaks built into today's proceedings. I will confirm now that I intend for there to be a break of around 15 minutes, around 6pm. There are also options for members to participate from other locations other than the chamber as required and, as agreed by the Parliament, as recommended by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. The Parliamentary Bureau has discussed the scheduling of business and I would seek to reassure the member that some of the issues he has raised were considered by business managers. On a point of order, Mr Burnett spoke to an amendment to the business motion. That amendment has not been circulated to me or other members, either by Mr Burnett or the parliamentary business team, so I am concerned about that fact that it has not been circulated to members. The actual amendment that Mr Burnett has just spoken to. I thank Mr Balfour for his point of order. I appreciate the points he makes. However, standing orders allow that any member who can lodge an amendment to the business motion where they have sufficient support to speak to it. That is 10 members. I appreciate what Mr Bibby is saying with regard to the wording of the statement. I can certainly ask Mr Burnett to advise the member of the wording of his amendment. Mr Burnett, if you could advise the Parliament of the wording of your amendment. I am very grateful, Presiding Officer, but the question of the motion is that it should be published. We received a business update at 1.38, which I assume was later than the amendment that was placed in. I was just wondering why it was not published with that when the parliamentary managers' motions were published. I understand that it was not later than that point. The amendments came in after that point. I am going to recommend that we suspend Parliament for the time being in order to ensure that all members have the wording that they require.