 Diolch yn fawr. 1-1-2-6-0 be agreed? Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 1-1-2-6-2 on approval of an SSI, and I asked George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move the motion. Moved, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Minister, and I call on Paul Sweeney. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Labour will not be supporting this motion tonight as we believe that there is more work to be done to ensure that these regulations are proportionate and appropriate for children. This particular statutory instrument seeks to amend the mental health safety and security regulations of 2005 to add Fox Grove, a new national inpatient facility for children and young people aged 12 to 17, located at the Ayrshire central hospital in Irvine, to the list of hospitals subject to the regulations. This statutory instrument would mean that the young patients are subject to the same measures that currently apply to adult facilities under the regulations, such as searching of patients and their belongings, sampling certain body fluid or tissue, placing restrictions and prohibiting visits, placing restrictions on the kind of things patients may have with them in hospital and possibly confiscating items. Labour welcomes the introduction of much-needed specialist services, but we remain concerned that more work needs to be done to ensure that those regulations do not undermine the human rights of children, including those set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In written evidence to the health, social care and sport committee, the national youth justice advisory group said in the quote that they do not believe the measures should be authorised as they stand as children under 18 of different levels need and maturity. The children and young people's commissioner said in the quote that we recommend that alternative proposals be developed using as a starting point the secure care standards and pathways and the Centre for Mental Health and Capacity Law at Edinburgh Napier University said in the quote that there should be detailed human rights impact assessment undertaken in addition to this limited consultation. Indeed, consultation on this instrument lasted just two weeks receiving only nine responses and many were unaware that it was taking place. A full children's rights and wellbeing impact assessment has not been completed and there are legitimate concerns around consent and capacity of the patients given both their age and varying complex needs. While I appreciate that the minister committed to children's rights and wellbeing impact assessment before committee last week, this should have been completed before this instrument was brought before Parliament. On that basis, Labour will not support this instrument tonight and I would encourage all members across the chamber to vote with us and to fare this instrument until a full children's rights impact assessment and a satisfactory level of consultation with critical stakeholders has been undertaken. I call on Marie Todd to respond up to three minutes minister. Let me be clear from the start, Presiding Officer. Fox Grove is an essential service for children and young people with complex mental health needs. There is currently no other service that can meet those needs in Scotland. If these amendments are not passed, Fox Grove will be unable to maintain a safe and therapeutic hospital environment for young people who require care in a medium secure facility. I would like to reassure members that the safety and security regulations sit within a comprehensive legal framework of the Mental Health Act which is designed to uphold patients' rights whilst also ensuring their safety and that of those caring for them. Of course, children and young people have different levels of need and maturity to adults and require developmentally appropriate support. I can reassure the chamber that, prior to admission and throughout their stay in Fox Grove, children and young people will be involved in supported decision making around all aspects of their care and treatment. I have been very clear that, in line with the safe word guards built into the regulations and the Mental Health Act, the measures will be applied only when necessary and they will be applied in a proportionate way that is sensitive to the developmental stage of the child or young person. The approach will be consistent with that employed for children in secure care and, in particular, the secure care standards and pathways. Patients appropriately admitted to medium secure conditions do present with significant risks to others, including staff and peers. Those regulations allow the clinical staff to take proportionate measures to maintain a safe environment. There is no intent to be punitive. In the absence of those powers, it would be impossible to maintain the necessary safe therapeutic hospital environment that is needed to promote recovery. Please be assured that, when the measures are applied, they will uphold and protect the human rights of children and young people in line with our commitment to the UNCRC. The regulations also allow scrutiny and oversight by the Mental Welfare Commission. Yes, I will. I am very grateful to the minister for giving way, but we cannot tell whether or not those regulations will uphold those people's human rights until you have done a human rights assessment, which my colleague has just outlined that has not been carried out. As I explained at committee, much of the work for the human rights assessment has been completed and we are very content to complete it. We are certain that it will comply and we will provide the committee with that. With regard to the consultation, a short-targeted consultation was undertaken between 28 September and 12 October. Although there were only nine responses received, there were from key bodies that are charged with upholding human rights of children in Scotland. In addition to the consultation, officials also arranged meetings with those stakeholders in order to seek further information on the responses. From those meetings, stakeholders' discussions indicated broad support. Therefore, in addition to the initial consultation, there has been a sufficient level of engagement with key individuals and organisations. Many of the questions that members had when I appeared before the health and sport and social care committee related to the operational management of Fox Grove and NHS Ayrshire and Arran, as the commission to health board, are responsible for developing operational policy. They would be pleased to welcome any interested members on a visit to Fox Grove to help to understand how it will operate and to answer any of their concerns. Those regulations are an essential step in preparing for Fox Grove to admit patients, which it hopes to do in March 24. I therefore urge members to approve those regulations. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 11264 on designation of a lead committee. I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move the motion. Earlier this month, the court of session upheld an initial ruling that the legal definition of the word women is not limited to a person of the female biological sex. That means that a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate, GRC, is given the same recognition as a biological woman in law. Current legislation allows for trans women to obtain a GRC if she has lived in her acquired gender for at least two years, is above the age of 18 and has received a suitable medical diagnosis. If the SNP-Green Government had its way, the process of obtaining a GRC would be made much easier by lowering the minimum age one can apply for a certificate to 16, removing the need for a medical diagnosis and significantly reducing the time period an applicant must have lived in their acquired gender to only three months. Therefore, that would fundamentally change the definition of the word women and expand who would be eligible to sit on corporate boards as a woman. Around this time last year, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Asalim, wrote that the Scottish Government must, as a minimum, await the outcome of judgments on those very issues in front of both the Scottish and UK courts, including the judgment on the case of the Public Boards Act before moving forward with the GRR Bill. My Scottish Conservative colleagues repeatedly warned the SNP Government's gender shelf ID bill made it significantly easier to change legal gender. Now, as a result of this latest court ruling, the SNP Government has been forced to remove the definition of the word women from the Public Boards Act. Just like with the UNCRC bill, we are once again having to use that parliamentary time and resources to fix another piece of poorly drafted legislation. Taxpayers have already been footied with an almost £230,000 bill for this Government's legal battle to try and save this Government's flawed gender shelf ID bill, which is opposed by the majority of Scots. More time and money will be spent fixing the SNP's Government's latest mistake. I do hope that the Scottish ministers will use this court case to finally learn their lesson. I call Shirley-Anne Somerville to respond up to three minutes, cabinet secretary. The agenda representation on the Public Boards Amendment bill aims to align the act with the court of session ruling last year, which stated that its inclusion of the definition of women was outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and was therefore not law. The bill, if passed, will provide clarity by removing the redundant definition from the statute book. We have looked at all other planned legislation and did not find a suitable bill to take this forward. We appreciate that it is unusual to have such a short bill, but it is a simple, small technical fix to the statute book. The bill does not change the policy intention of the 2018 act. We still want boards of public bodies to better reflect the population of Scotland. The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee was the committee that worked in the 2018 act, and it is appropriate that it works on the bill. The thrust of the 2018 act is an equality issue. The timetable for the Parliament's scrutiny of the bill is a matter for the parliamentary bureau. It is up to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee how they scrutinise that bill. I support the motion to refer the amendment bill to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. The question on this motion 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 11261 on approval of an SSI, 11263 on approval of an SSI, 11265 on committee substitutes and 11266 on recess dates. Thank you minister. The question on these motions will be put at decision time, and there are six questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is the amendment 11247.2 in the name of Shona Robison, which seeks to amend motion 11247 in the name of Douglas Ross on independent investigation into the First Minister and Deputy First Minister be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we'll move to vote and there'll be a short suspension until our members to access digital voting.