 Felly, ddweud o'r bwysig o'r cyffredinol. Now, it's time to move on to the next item for business, which is consideration of business motion 11143 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, I'm moved. Thank you. I call on Russell Findlay to speak to and move amendment 11143.2 up to five minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Scottish Government has spent more than £80,000 in papers about breaking up the United Kingdom. They've just wasted more taxpayers' money to publish their latest instalment of propaganda, which they now want to debate in Parliament. Even Humza Yousaf admits that those sit on a website and nobody reads them. Policing is one of the many public services for which the Scottish Government has full responsibility. The outlook is dire for our hardworking police officers who protect the public. In recent months, we've heard a series of shocking announcements about Police Scotland. One senior officer described SNP cuts as slash and burn. The Justice Committee has been told that more than 2,000 police officers could be taken off our streets. The police say that they will no longer be able to investigate every crime in the north-east of Scotland. The Police Federation put it in the starkest possible terms. People may die. We're seeing a rise in recorded crime, and that is just what is being reported. The former chief constable said that policing is not one of the SNP Government's priorities. Yet, in the duration of this parliamentary term, the SNP Government has not dedicated a single debate solely on Scotland's police force. Although we've already had multiple debates endlessly arguing about independence, my business motion amendment proposes ditching the SNP's planned debate on independence and replacing it with a much-needed, long-awaited discussion on the future of Scotland's police. I'm giving SNP members the opportunity to make it clear where their priorities lie. Is it with the police and giving them the resources they need to keep the public safe, or is it with their own political obsession with independence? I know that my party and I will be backing the police, and I urge all members to do the same. I move the business motion amendment in my name. I now call on Martin Whitfield to speak to and move amendment 11143.1 up to five minutes, please. I'm very grateful, Presiding Officer, and for the formalities I move the motion in my name. The amendment seeks to alternate a debate from one that the Scottish Government wish to have with one that the Scottish people wish to have. In the previous amendment that has been put, which, unfortunately, because of preemption, we will be unable to support, shows that across this chamber there are priorities that exist. My amendment would allow the Scottish Government to talk about the homeless crisis that we have here in Scotland. That which is not unique to Scotland, but one in which our constituents suffer differently, be it they live in a city and we have Edinburgh that is just called a housing crisis, and those that live in the country, and I think in particular of the constituents across the south of Scotland, but also that homeless crisis that applies to our students. I'm more than happy to give way. As I understand it, the members on both sides are keen to ditch the debate on immigration and the fact that immigration powers should be in the hands of this Parliament. This week alone, we learned that 7,500 children are stuck in the asylum system run by the UK Government. Is that not something that we should be debating? I'm very grateful for that intervention and it will be interesting. It will be interesting to see how the motion is indeed framed. If indeed it talks about those individuals that the intervention made mention of, because there is no indication there in the title that's been offered that that's what it's going to talk about, whereas both in the amendment that's been proposed from the Conservative Party and the amendment that I move, we are speaking specifically about challenges that we face here in Scotland that our constituents face, particularly with regard to homelessness. Soon after the recent report from the Trussell Trust on a horrendous increase in the number of emergency parcels that have had to be handed out and provided for, we are living at a time where there are crises in our community. Those crises are many and varied, as we've heard across this Chamber, but one in particular and one I urge consideration for is in the state of the homelessness, a situation that during Covid we showed that we could deal with and now we have abandoned those people. I move the motion in my name, Presiding Officer. I call on George Adam to respond on behalf of the parliamentary bureau up to five minutes, Minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and it's been a while since we've had one of these discussions at decision time, Presiding Officer. As always, I will try and work constructively with other business bureau managers and I will continue to do so in the future. Martin Whitfield's amended proposal for discussion is valid and of merit. We no doubt will discuss this at future bureau meetings, but it is my belief, Presiding Officer, that Scotland's Parliament must discuss Scotland's future. Mr Whitfield and I made the disagree on what that future holds for us, but it is my belief that Scottish independence provides us with the tools necessary to deal with the issues and the challenges, such as the ones that Mr Whitfield wishes to discuss, and that shows the need for the building a new Scotland series of papers, Presiding Officer. With regard to parliamentary process, there is nothing in the standing orders that prevents us from discussing matters beyond the powers of this Parliament, and it is not unusual for the Scottish Parliament to debate and vote in motions in areas that are reserved so that proposed building a new Scotland debate is not new or novel in that sense. We've had numerous debates in the Parliament on reserved matters that have allowed the Parliament to take a position or send a message to those who are responsible for such decisions. In fact, nuclear weapons was the subject of a member's debate just last week, Presiding Officer. On 4 October, the Government brought forward a debate on the UK Government's two child benefit cap. Members of the Scottish Labour Party, the Scottish Conservative Party, took part in that debate without raising any issues with the reserved nature of the topic, and some members of the Labour Party even criticised us for being too narrow when focusing on the debate on the two child benefit cap instead of the wider issues with the UK Government's universal credit system. On migration itself, this is an important discussion for us to have in this Parliament. In April this year, the Scottish Government led a debate on the UK Government's proposed illegal migration bill, and the Labour member supported the Government's motion, albeit with an amendment, and no such opposition to the relevance of that debate as well. Scotland's population is projected to begin to fall within the next decade and the opportunity to discuss this role and that migration can play in addressing Scotland's distinct demographic challenges should be welcomed by all elected members. With regard to Mr Finlay, it was another exciting and riveting presentation from Mr Finlay, but at the end of the day, as of 30 September 2023, there were 379 more police officers than in 2007. With Police Scotland recruiting almost 600 officers this year alone and around 1,480 new recruits since the beginning of 2022. Once again, there is a difference between the reality and what Mr Finlay talks about. Scotland has more police officers per capita than England and Wales and higher peer ranges for officers of all ranks and high levels of investment over the last decade, with 30 officers per 10,000 population compared to 25 in England and Wales. The recently agreed pay deal is for 12 per cent increase over two years for the police workforce and for police officers remain the best paid in the UK. We will take no lectures, we will listen to no scenario from the Conservatives that we are not dealing with the police and make sure that Scotland crime is at an all-time low since the 70s and Mr Finlay might as well sit down because there is no point in boring us anymore. With that, I would like to say that I have made my arguments forward and I believe that Scotland must discuss Scotland's future. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Russell Finlay is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Martin Whitfield will fall. The first question is that amendment 11143.2 in the name of Russell Finlay, which seeks to amend motion 11143 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access digital voting.