 That concludes the debate on tackling health inequalities in Scotland. The next item of business is an urgent question. I call Rachel Hamilton. To ask the Scottish Government for its response to Lady Haldane's opinion on the petition of Four Women Scotland Ltd for judicial review. Cabinet Secretary, Shona Robison. We are pleased to note the outcome of this challenge, which is that the Scottish Therefore the gender representation on public board Scotland act 2018 has been held to be lawful and the petition has been dismissed, but as I'm sure Rachel Hamilton will appreciate, these are live proceedings with the possibility of an appeal. Rachel Hamilton, Thank you cabinet secretary for that answer. Throughout this debate, women's organisations have repeatedly warned that the gender recognition reform bill could risk the protections set out in the equality act, including single sex spaces. Yet SNP ministers have said over and over again that these will not be affected. Now we have a court ruling that from the perspective of the 2010 act trans women are included within the legal definition of women. By next week the Scottish Parliament could pass a self-id law, which could significantly speed up the process to obtain a gender recognition certificate. This would make it substantially easier for violent men to abuse the process and target women in abuse shelters and other protected places. Does the Cabinet Secretary now accept that the gender recognition reform bill may impact the rights and protections for women and girls under the Equality Act? Does she agree that we must now pause the gender recognition bill to consider the full implications of the court ruling? First of all, the judicial review was not considering the gender recognition reform bill. The gender recognition reform bill changes the process and requirements for obtaining a gender recognition certificate. It does not amend the legal effects of obtaining a gender recognition certificate, which has set out principally in section 9 of the 2004 act. The effect of a GRC remains what it has been for the last 18 years. It enables people to change their birth certificate to be in line with their acquired gender. The bill makes no change to this effect. It also clearly does not modify the Equality Act 2010, which is now stated on the face of the bill. Lady Haldane's ruling applies to GRCs as they are issued today under the current UK-wide process, and it will apply equally to those issued in Scotland under the process set out in the bill should Parliament agree with the bill. Even if that bill did not exist, the ruling would have been the same. It is entirely in line and consistent with that of the Equality and Human Rights Commission that the effect of the GRC is as I have laid out. I know that Rachel Hamilton takes a lot of store by what the Equality and Human Rights Commission says on those matters. Finally, exceptions in the Equality Act 2010 enable single-sex services to exclude trans people or treat them less favourably, whereas that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Those exceptions still apply, and I can do so whether the person has a GRC or not. We support those exceptions and think that they provide important protections. This bill does not change them. The SNP cannot close its ears to the dangers that the gender recognition bill presents. In just one week's time, the Scottish Parliament could be sleepwalking into passing a bill that will put women and girls at risk. The bill is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation ever bought before this Parliament. It deserves to be fully scrutinised, not rushed through. Can the Cabinet Secretary tell me and the thousands of women across Scotland worried about the implications of this legislation for them and their daughters why it is so essential that the bill is passed before Christmas? Rachel Hamilton, who I know was not in this Parliament over the course of the consideration of those issues, but we have been considering those issues for six years now. I consider that to be quite a long time to consider some of the principles behind the bill. There have been two full consultations on the bill, and there has been a lot of discussion and debate within the Parliament. The Equalities Committee had 12 sessions looking at the matter. At the end of the day, the Parliament has to come to a conclusion on the bill. In terms of those who are worried about it, that is why I have set out in my original answer to Rachel Hamilton what the bill does, but, importantly, what the bill does not do. It does not change any of the purpose and effect of a gender recognition certificate, which has been in place for nearly 20 years now. It does not change those protections and exceptions under the Equality Act 2010. Those remain the same. Those are the reassurances that I would hope that members of this Parliament would be able to communicate to anyone who asks them about the effect of the gender recognition bill. The cabinet secretary will be aware that there are amendments for consideration next week restating the provisions in the Equality Act 2010, including exclusions that can be applied in the delivery of single-sex spaces where it is proportionate to do so, and requiring the Government to publish guidance on the impact of the operation of the GRR for the public bodies and service providers in Scotland. Will the Government consider the position very carefully and ensure that services are not left to interpret the legislation by themselves? Obviously, we will and have and are giving consideration to all the amendments that have been submitted. However, as Jackie Baillie is more than aware, for those reasons, at stage 2, we agreed with the amendment from one of her members, Pam Duncan Glancy, that we would have on the face of the bill for the avoidance of doubt that nothing in the Equality Act changes. I think that that is important. What I would ask Jackie Baillie to reflect on is some of the competence issues of going beyond that. To select some parts of an act and not others is confusing in itself, but there is also the question about competence and challenge. All I would ask Jackie Baillie to reflect on are some of the utterances that are coming from the UK Government about the willingness and keenness to challenge this legislation. I do not want to give the ability for that to be able to happen by including things in the bill that would make that easier. I would just ask her to reflect on other occasions where that has been the case. While I am sympathetic to what Jackie Baillie is trying to achieve by this, I would ask her to reflect on that point and take it forward. The safety of women in our society is of paramount importance to my party. That is why we established a men's violence commission only last month. However, the conflation of the issue of women's safety and the provisions of this bill are sad, worrying and at times unhelpful. We have to uphold concerns that people have, but we can, as a Parliament, express to them the provisions that we have in this bill to make it easier to have the identity and the gender of trans people in our communities recognised on the documents that we as a state require them to hold is of paramount importance because the GRA is unamended harming people every day. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that in the message around this consideration of stage 3 next week that we need to go into that and point out things like the fact that there are no single sex spaces in our society that require either the presentation of a GRC or a birth certificate? In fact, they are not valid forms of identification. By making it easier for people to have who they are recognised on the documents they are required to hold, it is not going to put more women in harm's way. I would agree with that. I cannot express and highlight enough the fact that those exceptions in the Equality Act 2010 are there for the occasions where it is important for all the reasons that we understand to exclude women or trans men for that matter from services that are discrete services that are very clearly laid out in the guidance around the 2010 act of what those services would be. The gender recognition bill changes none of that at all. If you look at the evidence from other countries, there are something like 250 million people now living in countries that have a process of statutory declaration around gender recognition. There is no evidence emerging from those countries that there is a systematic misuse or abuse of that system and I think that that is important reassurance. However, it is important as we discuss this bill that we try to do it in an atmosphere and tone that addresses concerns but does not lead to a wider culture war that unfortunately we see in some parts of social media in particular because that does not do anyone any good. I think that we all have a leadership role in trying to avoid that. That concludes the urgent question. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 7242, 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. As I indicated last week, the Scottish Conservatives are seeking to amend next week's business programme to bring forward statements and debates that should have been scheduled before Christmas. I also hope that the Minister for Parliamentary Business corrects the record of last week to accurately reflect that the bureau was not unanimous in its support of the timetabling of a GRR bill. I thank the Minister for agreeing to a statement on the climate change committee report next Wednesday. However, a whole week's worth of business is being delayed for no good reason. Our alternative programme includes a statement on the SDPR2 report, which was snuck out late last Thursday, and an update on NPF4, which we were promised. It provides an update on the Scottish Government's biodiversity strategy, which I'm sure all parties agree is important. On top of that, my colleague Stephen Kerr has tried to raise the curriculum for excellent achievement statistics in Parliament, but to no avail. There is no reason why an education statement should not be scheduled next week, so that the cabinet secretary can answer questions from elected representatives. We are also seeking to timetable two debates, one on the Scottish budget, a subject that the Scottish Government had previously only allocated less than one minute of questions per billion pounds of spending. The other is on the next steps of the agricultural bill, something that I know that the Scottish National Party Scotland has been pushing for. Those issues have been kicked into the new year by the Scottish Government in their unrelenting quest to pass the gender bill before Christmas. This is a bill that has been accused of lacking the usual scrutiny process of this Parliament. If you could just give me a moment, can we please extend courtesy to Mr Burnett and make sure that we can hear members when they are speaking? Thank you, Presiding Officer. Indeed, since the SNP and Greens joined forces, racing through legislation without scrutiny has become the norm. Their reason for rushing this bill is completely unacceptable, and we all know what it is. It is even more unreasonable when you consider all the issues that I have already mentioned, which are now being sidelined. It is interesting to note how much importance has been placed on finishing the gender bill before 2023, when you consider that the last week before recess is usually when the Government rolls out a list of its failures and embarrassments in the hope that the festive break will swallow them all up. Last week, the Minister tried to score a cheap point by suggesting that we would close down Parliament early for Christmas. Today, I asked the Minister to put his money where his mouth is and to support my amendment, so that Parliament has a proper programme of work next Thursday, instead of a half-day that he and his parties' MSPs may be hoping for. I move the amendment in my name, and I urge all members to support it. I call on George Adam to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. Up to five minutes, Presiding Officer. Well, that was a thing, wasn't it? We covered this last week, Presiding Officer, and again at the Bureau this week. Yesterday, the Bureau agreed this business programme. As I said last week, we have already added a week to the timeline and doubled the length of time of the debate. Both of those changes were requested by the Labour business manager. As always, I am happy to work with colleagues. In fact, Mr Bibby is trying to make an intervention. As we speak, I am quite happy to take it. Neil Bibby. I thank the Minister for taking the intervention. As the Minister will wear the stage 3 gender recognition reform belt, it was delayed and extended over two days following our request for more time and detailed scrutiny. The stage 3 debate was also doubled in length following our request 2, and I welcome those changes. However, the Minister will also wear a request for statements highlighted by Alexander Burnett on key issues—most multiply the statement on climate change committee report and educational attainment, which Scottish Labour refers to request. Can I therefore ask the Minister to reflect on whether time can be set aside next week for additional statements and time that does not take away the need for detailed and proper scrutiny of the gender recognition reform belt? As always, Mr Bibby is reasonable in his requests. I am quite willing to come to the points that he makes. The timeline that we have already set out in the Parliament's standing orders and the convention agreed between the Government and the Parliament. In addition to that, I am pleased—this will help Mr Bibby out—that we are accepting all the requests of statements from business managers. Those include every single one in the Conservatives' amendment here before us, and I will be back to the bureau with dates for them as soon as possible. Finally, on the Conservatives' attempt to add a debate on the budget. I have one thing to say here. The Scottish Government would relish such a debate—I think the Deputy First Minister would relish such a debate—that would allow us to outline just how disastrous the Tory budget is for us here in Scotland. I am likely to come back to that at a later date, so I proposed the business as agreed yesterday by the bureau. The question is that amendment 7242.1, in the name of Alexander Burnett, which seeks to amend motion 7242 in the name of George Adam, setting out a business programme, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. There will be a brief pause to allow members to access the digital voting system.