 The question is that amendment 12867.1 in the name of Megan Gallaker, which seeks to amend motion 12867 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme, be agreed, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. I call Pam Gosall for a point of order. I call Pam Gosall for a point of order. I couldn't connect another vote. The result of the vote on amendment No 12867.1 in the name of Megan Galares is yes, $53C, no $60C, there were five extensions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is the motion 12867 in the name of George Adam, on behalf of Parliamentary Bureau, on a business programme be agreed. Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of business motions 12868 on a stage one timetable for a bill and 12869 and 12870 on stage two timetables for bills and I ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak buttons. I call on George Adam am llawer o'r Ffmgaf reunionau gyda'r Ffmgaf reunionau gyda'r ffmgaf reunionau. The question is that motions 12868, 12869 and 12870 be agreed. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motions 12871 1, 2, 8, 7, 2, on approval of SSIs and I asked George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move the motions. I call on Sandesh Gulhane up to three minutes please. I wish to declare my register of interests as a practicing NHS GP. The SNP Government may trumpet in this chamber their minimum pricing policy as a so-called major success but I would ask the Minister to say that to the families of the 1276 Scots who died in 2022 due to alcohol, families who are grieving the loss of their loved ones. We know that the SNP has tried one flagship approach to tackle excessive drinking to make alcohol more expensive and so thus deter the less well off from purchasing. For dependent drinkers on the lowest incomes, we know they are going without food instead. MUP isn't a slam dunk success, a magic bullet, as the SNP believe it. It can't be because alcohol-related deaths are not reducing by any credible measure. Of course, seeing the SNP spin machine in overdrive over MUP, notably with regard to a key Public Health Scotland report, the trouble is to grab the headlines that the SNP misrepresented the facts. They spun estimates as facts and they also implied that their resounding success was based on 40 different policies and studies and that was backed but this again is simply not true. What is clear and this is important is that Public Health Scotland report acknowledges there was only limited evidence. The SNP's push now to know I will not, you should listen to this, the SNP's push to increase MUP to 65p which can result in an increase at a hike of 30% disproportionately penalises responsible drinkers on a low income and those dependent upon alcohol and if that's not bad enough this extra money does not go to fund addiction services. We all know that addiction is complex and requires a multi-faceted approach yet the SNP has one approach and that is to put up the price. They have their silver bullet and that silver bullet is a blank because what is clear and crystal clear is that more people suffer alcohol related deaths now than in 2018 when MUP was introduced. In fact men from deprived areas are drinking more with MUP in place than before and others are switching to spirits. The Scottish Government has failed to provide the necessary investment in prevention and treatment services. If the SNP were to ever want to get a grip, people suffering from dependence should have the right to access treatment and rehabilitation via our right to recovery pill. That is the priority, not forcing every Scot to pay more. I call on Christina McKelvie to respond up to three minutes minister. I'm glad for the opportunity to address colleagues across the chamber on minimum unit pricing ahead of this crucial vote. Parliament has the opportunity to show that Scotland continues to be world leading with policies to improve the health of people in Scotland by voting to continue minimum unit pricing and to increase the price per unit to 65 pence. I implore Members across this Parliament to vote in favour of these orders in line with the views of over 80 third sector organisations. That's people working on the front line every single day. Public health experts, senior clinicians who wrote voicing their support for minimum unit pricing and a proposal to increase to 65 pence per unit. Minimum unit pricing is an extensively evaluated policy. Public health Scotland's independent evaluation estimated that, during the period it considered, minimum unit pricing reduced alcohol attributable deaths by 13.4 per cent. That's 156 people a year. That's the limited evidence that Sandesh Gohaniw shows that it's 156 lives. They also said that it was likely to have reduced hospital admissions wholly attributable to alcohol by 4.1 per cent compared to what would have happened if MUP had not been in place. The evaluation found no evidence of a significant impact on alcohol drinks industry as a whole. The evaluation also has been commended by internationally renowned public health experts, including Professor Sir Michael Marmont and Professor Sally Carswell. That would counter Sandesh Gohaniw's comments today, because this is what they said. Policy makers can be confident that there are several hundred people in low income in Scotland who would have died as a result of alcohol, who are alive today as a result of minimum unit pricing. Who to believe, Presiding Officer? I'll stick with the experts. The decision to propose 65p per unit is underpinned by modelling by the esteemed university of Sheffield, among consideration of many other factors. Those are set out in detail in the published business and regularity impact assessment, which I commended to Sandesh Gohaniw at committee that he's obviously not read it. Sheffield University's modelling suggests to maintain the value of the price per unit and therefore to continue to achieve the public health benefits at a level estimated by public health Scotland's evaluation. It should be increased to at least six defence. However, it's clear that Scotland continues to experience significant levels of alcohol harm. The Scottish Government is therefore proposing to increase the value of the price per unit to 65p, to further increase the public health benefits of the policy, maybe another 156 lives saved. I expect and modelling predicts that, if that increase is implemented, it will save those additional lives. I have heard the concerns of some members on the potential effects of the policy on people who consume alcohol at the highest levels. Specialist support and treatment is vital for people with alcohol dependence. To this end, the Scottish Government provided record funding of £112 million in the last financial year to Scotland's alcohol and drug partnerships, so it's just not true to say that this is the only measure that we are taking. That funding supports the delivery of services for people who are alcohol dependent, whether that's residential rehab, community-based services or other types of vital support. I implore members to vote in favour of both of these orders to reduce alcohol related harm that continues to affect far too many people, reduce harm and save lives. That's easy. Thank you. The question on these motions will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of four parliamentary bureau motions, and I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move motions 12873 to 12875 on approval of SSIs and 12876 on designation of a lead committee. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and all moved. Thank you, Minister. The question on these motions will be put at decision time. There are six questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that amendment 12855.3 in the name of Siobhan Brown, which seeks to amend motion 12855 in the name of Russell Finlay on repealing the Hate Crime Act, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we'll move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. I call Katie Clark for a point of order. I would have voted no. The result of the vote on amendment 12855.3 in the name of Siobhan Brown is yes, 64, no, 49, there were five abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 12855.4 in the name of Pauline McNeill, which seeks to amend motion 12855 in the name of Russell Finlay on repealing the Hate Crime Act, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we'll move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 12855.4 in the name of Pauline McNeill is yes, 20, no, 97, there was one abstention, the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 12855 in the name of Russell Finlay, as amended, on repealing the Hate Crime Act, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we'll move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on motion 12855 in the name of Russell Finlay, as amended, is yes, 64, no, 29, there were 25 abstentions, the motion as amended is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 12871 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau on approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 12872 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau on approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we'll move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on motion 12872 in the name of George Adam is yes, 88, no, 28, there were no abstentions, the motion is therefore agreed. I propose to ask a single question on four parliamentary bureau motions. Does any member object? No member objects, therefore the final question is that motions 12873 to 12875 on approval of SSIs and 12876 on designation of a lead committee in the name of George Adam on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motions are therefore agreed and that concludes decision time and we'll now move on to members business in the name of Ivan McKee.