and prepare and publish a report and action plan. Now the minister also expressed concern that the confidentiality of the patient would be infringed and I've addressed that again by ensuring that again unless the person consents or it's in the public interest their name should be redacted and the same restriction applies to the mental welfare reports which I believe should be placed before Parliament as a collation of the reports from the health boards. Those affected by these rare offences should have a right to know that all that can be done will be done to prevent a recurrence. I am aware that of the two further concerns about my proposal firstly the timing as to how long ago should the mental health services have been involved to require them to conduct an inquiry and produce a report. Instead of having a fixed time limit or no time limit I've now allowed the minister to determine this in regulations if the amendment is accepted. Secondly there's a concern that a review by the board would have cut across the justice process. I believe that this is nonsense. This is not whether or not the offence was committed or what action in law is appropriate is about reviewing care and treatment of the person charged. Finally I very much welcome the ongoing discussions between the Mental Welfare Commission, the Health Improvement Scotland and the health boards but will the outcome of their discussions be enshrined in law regulations? It will not. We have a permissive system had a permissive system now for over a decade which is not good and it is enough time for us to make sure now that this law be made clear. I move amendment 39. I thank Richard Simpson for his continuing work on this issue. I know that he has been working particularly closely with victims organisations. The amendment that Dr Simpson has lodged is similar to the one that he lodged at stage 2. I know that he has sought to address some of the issues that the amendment had, notably addressing concerns relating to confidentiality. I am restricting the scope of people being treated in the six months before being charged with an offence. However, I still have fundamental concerns in relation to a review being triggered upon a person being charged with an offence prior to any conviction. I am concerned that this would cut across the prosecution system whose independence is guaranteed by the Scotland Act 1998 and the circumstances that are required for a fair trial. I cannot accept investigations that run parallel to what the fiscal and police are doing, especially if it involves publication of findings that could potentially interfere with that process. I do not believe that that is a nonsense. I believe that that is a serious concern. However, I agree that a more streamlined system is needed, which ensures that lessons are learned and shared across the system and which provides comfort and reassurance to families in those tragic cases. Members will be aware of the briefing by the Mental Welfare Commission for this stage, which covers the issue. The commission already has a power under section 11 of the 2003 Act to investigate cases of deficiency of care. It is from time to time investigated and homicide by patients under this power. The commission has proposed that they, working with Healthcare Improvement Scotland, should build on existing systems to ensure that all cases are reviewed appropriately. They would consult with key stakeholders such as the Forensic Division of the Royal College and, of course, 100 families. The commission has noted that it will be able to share an outline proposal with interested parties in the summer. In light of the work that is already under way and the significant concerns that I have with this amendment, I urge Dr Simpson not to press his amendment. Thank you, Dr Simpson. Can you wind up and indicate if you intend to press her with Trump? Briefly, Deputy Presiding Officer, the issue of being charged and cutting across the justice issue is perfectly possible for the report and the review to be undertaken, but for the report not to be published until the fiscal or court to determine the outcome. In that case, if it is undertaken on a private basis, it will not, in fact, interfere with the public concerns about the court cases proceeding. On that basis, I reject the minister's concerns in that regard. I welcome the fact that the minister is proceeding with discussions with the various interested bodies to sort out what is actually accepted by all, including the Mental Welfare Commission, as being a dysfunctional system. However, I simply do not believe that we have regulators in Scotland generally that have sufficient teeth to ensure that all cases are properly investigated. There is no great evidence that, under the permissive system that we have had, this has occurred, and I do not have the confidence of believing that without regulation, which the minister will determine what those regulations are subject to Parliament's approval, that, without regulation, we could be sitting here in another five or six years debating exactly the same topic in exactly the same way, even with the best will in the world and new protocols being determined. I wish to move the amendment to my name. The member has pressed the amendment. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. This will be a one minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 39 is yes, 50, no, 59. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. That brings us to group 15, victim notification scheme, and I call amendment 41 in the name of the minister. Group with amendments 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48. I ask the minister to move amendment 41 and speak to all the amendments in the group, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Those amendments are all to part 3 of the bill, which introduces statutory notification and representation scheme for victims of offenders who are mentally disordered and as a result subject to certain orders and intentions to develop a scheme that as closely as possible resembles the scheme available to victims under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Amendments 42, 43, 45, 47 make provision for providing information to victims when a tribunal has made a decision to revoke a patient's restriction order, but the decision is successfully appealed and overturned. Victims can choose to join the victim notification scheme. A victim can also opt into the victim representation scheme, that is to make representations to the mental health tribunal. In order to opt into the representation scheme, the victim must also opt into the notification scheme of a victim. He has opted into the notification scheme but not the representation scheme. He or she will receive a notification only when the position of the restrictive patient changes and that change is covered by the scheme. Matters are, however, complicated by the possibility of an appeal against the tribunal's revocation of a compulsion order or restriction order. They are further complicated by the fact that, under section 323 of the 2003 Mental Health Act, the court can make an order of rendering the tribunal's decision to revoke the order of infection until an appeal has been finally determined. The proposed amendments provide for a range of scenarios under the circumstances where a victim has chosen not to join the representation scheme and the decision of the tribunal has appealed and the court makes a section 323 order to suspend the decision of the tribunal pending determination of the appeal. The victim will only be notified even when the order is revoked. That is once the appeal process is complete and the outcome is that the order is revoked. That is on the basis that has been not a material change to the position of the patient that compulsion order or restriction orders remain in place until the order is revoked at the end of the appeal process. Under the circumstances where a victim has chosen not to join the representation scheme and the decision of the tribunal has appealed, but the court does not make a section 323 order to suspend the decision pending the determination of the appeal. The victim will be notified and kept informed of the progress of the appeal. That is on the basis that has been a material change to the position of the patient that is the restriction order or compulsion order that has been revoked. Where a victim has chosen to join the representation scheme, the bill provides that the victim will be told of the outcome of the tribunal's decision. If that decision is appealed, the victim will get information that the decision has been appealed and the progress and outcome of that appeal, whether the court makes a section 320 order or not. The bill provides for ministers to give a victim an opportunity to make representations about varying conditions imposed in the patient away, which may have an effect on the victim or the victims' family. Amendments 41, 44, 46 and 48 are intended to ensure that the provisions are workable in practice. At stage 2, I introduced an amendment on the sort of information that may be provided to a victim about the patient covering conditions and imposing restrictions on the things that the patient may do after his or her conditional discharge. I indicated that in practice that this will commonly be a restriction as to where the patient is prohibited from going in person with whom the patient may not have contact. Having considered further how that would work in practice, I recognise that there could be circumstances where the official's operating scheme may not know which conditions could affect the victim or a member of the victim's family. If ministers fail to see the victim's representations under those circumstances, they would unwittingly be in breach of their statute of duty. Those amendments take account of that, but they still ensure the rights of the victim to make representations on specific conditions. Many thanks, minister. Another member has requested to speak. Do you wish to wind up? Thank you. The question then is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 23, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated, and I invite the minister to move amendments 42 to 48 and 23 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 42 to 48 and 23? No member has objected. The question then is that amendments 42 to 48 and 23 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, and that ends consideration of amendments. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 13599, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on the Mental Health Scotland Bill. Could I ask members who are leaving the chamber to please do so quickly and quietly? I invite members who wish to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons now, please. I call on Jamie Hepburn to speak to and to move the motion. Minister, 10 minutes please. Presiding Officer, the mental health bill's overarching objective is to help people with a mental disorder to access effective treatment quickly and easily.  It also introduces a victim notification scheme for victims of mentally disordered offenders in a way that respects the rights of both victims and vulnerable offenders. I am very grateful for the detailed and thorough scrutiny that the Health and Sport Committee has given to the bill at stages 1 and 2, which has helped to ensure that we get the legislation right and continue to maximise those protections and safeguards. The bill has been significantly improved during its parliamentary passage as a result. I would like to record my thanks to committee members as well as those members who are not on the committee who have engaged with the process for the work that they have done. I would like to take a few moments to set out some of the key aspects of the bill. The 2003 act brought in important protections, including advanced statements that help to involve patients in decision-making about their treatment by allowing service users to state how they would like to be treated if they become unwell. The bill will strengthen the position of advanced statements, giving service users greater confidence that their wishes will be taken into account in their treatment and ensuring that the mental welfare commission has a better picture of the use of advanced statements. I was very pleased to see that we supported the amendment in the name of Bob Doris, which will help service users to support and take up the opportunity to make a statement. We want to see advanced statements used in a far wider basis. That has been a common theme across the committee's scrutiny of the bill. Taking those provisions together, the bill should increase the use of advanced statements and help more service users to have great involvement in decisions about their treatment when they are unwell. Many service users have found the role of the name person introduced by the 2003 act to be an important protection, giving someone a role to act independently to protect their interests. However, I listened to the significant concerns that service users do not always want a name person, particularly as they see confidential information about the patient's medical treatment and the provisions in the bill mean that a service user will only have a name person if they want one. That is a really important step in promoting service users right. At the same time, we have, through amendments at stage 2, ensured that protections are in place for vulnerable service users who do not have the capacity to decide whether to appeal an order or a certificate to ensure that that does not impact on their privacy or autonomy. The bill will ensure that the intention in introducing the excessive security appeal provisions in the 2003 act and the Milan recommendations is fulfilled by extending the right of appeal against being detained in conditions of excessive security to those detained in medium-secure units. That intention was to give patients in high-secure, medium-secure units a right to appeal detention in conditions of excessive security. What is needed now is to take the scheme provided for in 2003 and ensure that it can operate effectively in the present secure state. The amendments that are debated today will ensure that we do that by extending the right to patients in medium-secure units as quickly as possible. I look forward to discussing that further when draft regulations are considered by the committee and Parliament after recess. Those are just some of the key changes in the bill that will make the 2003 act work more effectively and enhance the experience of and protections for service users. There has been widespread support for the introduction of the victim notification scheme for victims of mentally disordered offenders. The intention is for a scheme that respects the rights of both victims and, indeed, vulnerable offenders, closely resembling the scheme that is already available to victims under the criminal justice act. The scheme will be of huge benefit to victims who were not previously covered by the criminal justice scheme, and it will provide them with greater reassurance when the offender begins the process of discharge from treatment. We have also recognised that mentally disordered offenders may themselves be vulnerable. I know that that was a perspective that was being expressed by the committee during its consideration of the bill at its earlier stages, and we have made sure that that is taken into account. I am very grateful to the victim rights working group that was established, which included representatives from victim support and 100 families for their assistance in getting that balance right. The bill is an amending one in relation to the 2003 act, and I am aware that some members would have liked to have seen wider issues included. The bill is not a full stop at the end of a process. I am happy to put on record my commitment and to restate my commitment to certain further steps. I have heard the concerns that a number of people and organisations have raised about the inclusion of learning disability or autistic spectrum disorders under the 2003 act. I thank Jackie Baillie and Richard Simpson for the discussions that we had on that matter. We have debated the issue extensively at the amendment stage. The 2003 act provides people with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorders with important protections and safeguards and important access to care and treatment. I think that it is essential that, in anything that we seek to do, we must ensure that those protections must continue. I have committed to reviewing the inclusion of learning disability and autism under the definition of mental disorder in the 2003 act. It is important that this is genuinely participative and commenced with an open mind about the outcome and processing. As I set out earlier, we have started to discuss with stakeholders how we can undertake that engagement. I hope that that further demonstrates our serious intent in that regard in holding that review. A number of committee members have raised issues in relation to the role that psychologists play under the 2003 act following consideration of the issue by the British psychological society. I would like to thank them for their positive engagement. Again, I would like to thank Dr Milne for bringing forward the issue again at the amendment stage. I think that it is important that we debate those issues. I suppose that I have made the point and I will make the point again. I am sympathetic to the issue. I was not convinced of the specific provisions of the amendment. I think that it is important that we have a more widespread consultation and a more widespread review of the matter. As I noted earlier, I am committed to looking at the issue alongside the wider review on learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorders. Again, that is a serious commitment to review. Amendments were lodged at stage 2 and stage 3 in relation to investigating deaths of patients who are in hospital for treatment of mental illness deaths and the reporting of homicide by those who are being treated for mental health. Although I do not believe that a legislative approach was appropriate, it was happy to accept amendment 36. It was always the case that I believed that further work is necessary. My officers have already started to explore with the mental welfare commission how we can bring together a working group to develop a streamlined and effective approach to reviewing deaths and detention. In relation to the reporting of homicide by those who are being treated for mental health condition, the mental welfare commission will work, as I said earlier, with Healthcare Improvement Scotland and the Government to bring forward proposals building on current practice to ensure that all cases are reviewed appropriately. I recognise that it is very important to consult with key stakeholders, particularly the forensic division of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and, most definitely, appropriately organisations such as 100 Families. I will ensure that the Health and Sport Committee is informed of developments in both of those issues. Of course, I will always be happy to take the perspective of the committee in any work that we take forward. The bill is part of the wider work that the Government is undertaking to improve mental health service, including funding that I announced earlier this year in May, an additional £85 million for mental health over five years. Beyond the £15 million over three years announced in November 2014 for the Mental Health Innovation Fund, £100 million in total, we will be working with NHS Scotland and its partners to ensure that we get maximum benefit from the investment, focusing on further improvement to children and adolescent mental health services to bring down waiting times, improved access to services and particular psychological therapies, and better responses to mental health and community and primary care settings, including promoting wellbeing through physical activity and crucially improved patient rights. Again, I will be happy to keep Parliament up to date with progress on those matters. In conclusion, the bill further enhances the ability of people with a mental disorder to access effective treatment quickly and easily while maintaining and enhancing protections and safeguards. I move that the Parliament agrees that the mental health bill will be passed. I welcome the final stage today of the mental health bill. I also thank the people who moved amendments this afternoon. I have put all that work and consideration into the detail of this legislation, specifically the minister himself, my colleagues Richard Simpson and Jackie Bailey. We recognise the bill, Presiding Officer, as a very important step in tackling one of the greatest public health challenges of our time. We can reflect today on the progress that we have made as a country in removing the stigma attributed to mental health and addressing the complex and varied need for support that exists with the many people who are affected. However, in acknowledging the rise in awareness of mental health problems and the growing confidence that people now have in coming forward to access help, we also recognise that we still have much to do to ensure that there is a proper preventative agenda in place and that we support people to overcome or better manage mental health issues. The bill brings to an end along an often technical process that implements much of the comprehensive and detailed work of Professor Jim McManus and his review team in how we help people to access quick and effective treatment for mental health. The amount of work that Bruce Millan's review has gone into the bill and the level of engagement on the detail from outside groups proves what a serious and important issue this is for our Parliament and Scotland. I think that every member in this chamber would share my experience in their constituencies of the vast amount of case work that we deal with on mental health issues, on access to mental health services and the effect on our communities and families, for every family in Scotland on mental health. I commend the Government for its early approach in the passage of the bill by listening and responding to concerns that were raised at stage 1. I believe that we have improved the legislation that will pass today with our support, but I believe that there are areas where we could have gone further, particularly on the definition of mental disorder and patient's rights. As we know, the Millan review in 2001 recommended that there should be an expert review at an early date of the position of learning disability within mental health law. That was echoed by the McManus review, which said again in 2009 that it is time that this is done. That is supported by a number of groups, including Inclusion Scotland and Enable. If I can just quote from them today, Inclusion Scotland said, we believe that evidence presented to the health and sport committee raises serious questions on whether the safeguards in the 2003 act, particularly on the role of mental health officers and the right to advocacy, are working as intended and on whether mental health legislation is compatible with ECHR. Inclusion Scotland therefore believes that the time is right for a more comprehensive review of mental health legislation in Scotland to ensure compliance with human rights obligations and to provide specific legislation to meet the needs of people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders. Enable pointed out that 14 years after her review was first recommended in Millan, people with learning disabilities are still waiting for a review to take place. The case has been made very ably today in this chamber by my colleagues Richard Simpson and Jackie Baillie. That would have instigated a major review of mental health services that puts rights first. A major review would have explored whether learning disability and autism should be considered a mental disorder. It would have scrutinised the human rights implications of a patient's right to refuse treatment. It would have allowed us to have a proper look at advocacy services and allowed transparent investigations into deaths in mental health units or under community treatment orders. With both reviews calling for this change, many of the mental health charities supporting it and organisations and a well-argued amendment by my colleagues, this was an opportunity to make that change that is needed. While we are disappointed that the Government failed to support this approach today, there is enough in this bill in its current form for us to support the Government and welcome the passage of the bill today. I suggest that we have rejected the approach that will see a review of the inclusion of learning disability and autism within the scope of the 2003 act. That is fundamentally not the case. I have committed repeatedly now to that review. We will be undertaking that review, and on that basis I presume that she will welcome that fact. It is my understanding that Jackie Baillie's amendment, which I referred to, was rejected today by the Government. I would like to clarify. Farah, we had the debate around the circumstances of the amendment. It was the specifics of the amendment. We had the detailed debate. I am happy to go over that again in closing. It was not about the principle that we have the review. I have committed to the Government undertaking that review. We will have that review. There were just some concerns about the specifics of Ms Baillie's amendment. I hope that the minister in summing up might put a time frame on that review and make commitments to that. Can we welcome many of the well-thought-out steps that will be implemented as a result of this bill in advanced statements and in advocacy? We cannot leave this chamber today with a sense of a job done. In Scotland, a quarter of people will experience a diagnosable mental health problem at some point in their lives. The varied and complex nature of mental health and the slow and invisible way it can take hold of people's lives mean that we have to stay vigilant and continually look forward to improve support for mental health. Scotland has long been regarded as a world leader in support for mental health, something that we are rightly proud of as a Parliament. However, if that is to continue, we must keep building on that and ensure that we are offering person-centred rights-based support. I would like to add my thanks to the health and sport committee clerks, to the bill team and the many witnesses and stakeholders who have been so helpful throughout the parliamentary process of this bill. The 2003 mental healthcare and treatment Scotland act was a very important piece of legislation that sought to minimise interference in people's liberty and maximise the involvement of people with mental health issues in their treatment, giving them the right to express their views about their care and treatment, the right to independent advocacy, the right to submit an advanced statement about how they wish to be treated when they become ill and the right to choose a named person to act on their behalf when necessary. Twelve years on from this act and following the McManus review in 2009, it became clear that some aspects of the 2003 act are not working as well as intended, and the current bill aims to improve and bring additional clarity to that act so that patients indeed benefit from the intended minimum interference and maximum involvement with their treatment. The principles of this amending bill were generally welcomed at stage 1, but it was recognised that significant amendments would be needed to ensure that the policy intention became effective, and there were serious concerns in certain policy areas. Amendments at stages 2 and 3 have served to allay a number of the concerns expressed to the Health and Sport Committee by witnesses and stakeholders, but some remain unresolved. The minister has made it very clear that he sees the current bill as a light-touched review of the 2003 legislation and does not intend to accept more fundamental changes without further detailed consultation and review. Among the amendments to be welcomed is the one that removes the initial proposal to extend the period of short-term detention from 5 to 10 days, an issue of concern raised by the law society. The mental welfare commission is pleased to see the limit of a suspension of detention kept at 200 days and not extended to 300 days as originally proposed. The tightening of the legislation to ensure that a named person is identified only when the patient wants one, the requirement for health boards to publicise the support offered by them to make or withdraw an advanced statement and respond to requests about such support from the mental welfare commission. The right of appeal for named persons in cases of cross-border transfer and the steps taken to gather information about the provision of advocacy services so that those may become more readily available to people who wish to use them. Those are all very welcome improvements to the bill as originally proposed. However, there are still remaining concerns, particularly as we have heard a lot this afternoon, around people with learning disability and those on the autistic spectrum, who are currently included in mental health legislation because they have these lifelong conditions, whether or not they are also mentally ill. There are differences of opinion among experts as to whether that is right, but there is strong feeling amongst those affected that current mental health legislation is inappropriate and that disability should be defined as an intellectual impairment rather than a mental disorder. A strong plea has been made for a wholesale review of mental health and incapacity legislation. Such a review was proposed by the Milan Committee as far back as 2001, and it was again recommended by McManus in 2009, so there is understandable frustration that that has not yet been achieved. The minister's clear commitment to a comprehensive, participative review of the inclusion of learning disability and autism in mental health legislation is very welcome, and I can understand why he does not want to commit to a timescale that might curb the scale of the review. Nevertheless, there is a degree of urgency about this, and I am sorry that he did not accept Jackie Baillie's stage 3 amendment to make sure that this is done within three years. I understand where she has come from and understand the frustrations that exist out of the air. That is one of the reasons that we have committed to undertaking the review. I think that the point that she spoke to there was the urgency, the necessity to get on with this task, and in that regard I can, and as I have already pointed out, officials are already in dialogue with some stakeholders about this process. We are beginning this process already, I hope again that it gives a signal of our intent here. I do understand it, and I fully accept the intent, but I think that we would really like to know the end of the process rather than it has begun. There are also unresolved issues around the use of psychoactive substances, which the minister again has agreed to consider during the promised review, and again this is welcome. To conclude, Presiding Officer, this amending legislation, which intends to clarify and improve the implementation of the 2003 act in the interest of the patients affected by it, is timely and welcome, but I do expect that more changes will be required after further review takes place. Significant advances have already been made in helping patients with mental health problems, but I think that this is still work in progress, and continuing scrutiny of current legislation must be on-going with an open mind regarding further changes as and when required. I have confined my remarks to some of the proposals in part 1 of the bill, and I have chosen not to elaborate on parts 2 and 3 on criminal cases and victims' rights. I will merely add that the legislative changes that are proposed in parts 2 and 3 are welcome, and we are supportive of them. All in all, we are comfortable with its amending legislation, and we will be supporting it at decision time this evening. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I welcome the mental health Scotland bill as amended at both stage 2 and stage 3 of the process. I very much hope and I believe that it will be passed later on this evening. The bill is specific, it is focused, and it will deliver a number of significant, if and although in some ways incremental, ways to benefit the people of Scotland. I am pleased that this afternoon the chamber agreed to my amendment to place a duty for health boards to publicise any support that it may offer in the making and the withdrawing of advanced statements, as well as being required to provide information to the mental welfare commission in relation to meeting the duty. I very much hope that that will drive change to boost the awareness of, the numbers of and the use of advanced statements in ensuring the wishes of those with mental health disorders, their wishes in terms of treatment and their life are respected where they can be. I am also pleased that in other areas we have extended rights, including, for example, the rights to victims of crime, to the extension of a victim notification scheme, and that is only correct in fitting that we do that.  As I have already mentioned, the Scottish Government listened to my case in relation to advanced statements this afternoon at stage 3, and it needs to other members in the back some other amendments also, but also a number of amendments by a variety of members at stage 2. I will perhaps mention just one of mine in relation to restricting the amount of invasive treatments that cross-border absconding patients could get in terms of emergency treatment should they arrive in Scotland and the Government move to protect the rights of those vulnerable, if at times, challenging individuals. That was fit and appropriate that they do that. I want to say a little bit about learning disabilities in terms of this bill and this process that has been shaped by the whole Parliament. A Government that listens is a Government that will accept some quite a lot but not necessarily all amendments that come forward, and that is and that is only right. There seems to be an undercurrent in relation to learning disabilities that if you do not accept all of the amendments, then somehow the Government is not listening in that area. I would say that that is simply not the case. In terms of learning disabilities, I will obviously look forward to more information in relation to any review in terms of that, but in any review that comes forward, I would like to make sure that it is a rights-based approach that we have to treating people with learning disabilities living with autism. In relation to that, I hope that we can give cognisance to how aspects such as the implementation of self-directed support by local authorities, particularly in the city of Glasgow, have negatively impacted those with learning disabilities in the city that I represent and the constituents that I represent. I hope that that can be reflected in terms of how we take that forward. In terms of service provision for those living with learning disabilities, there were some fine learning disability centres in Glasgow, which were gateways for very vulnerable adults to engage and interact with the wider community. Many of them have been left without the required support, and their right to that facility was withdrawn by the local authority. When we look at how we treat and respect those living with learning disabilities, we have to look at the role of local authorities to make sure that they meet their obligations to meet the rights of those living with learning disabilities. Certainly, people that I represent in Glasgow feel that many of their rights have been withdrawn, but I look forward to supporting the bill this evening. It will improve the lot of those who are living with mental health challenges in Scotland going forward. The bill is welcome, and the changes that it makes in the law will make a positive difference to the lives of individuals. However, it is clear that much more needs to be done. We need to give mental health the same focus and consideration as physical health, and there is still a huge amount of misunderstanding and stigma surrounding mental health. We, through the loss that we make, need to tackle that. I, like others, was disappointed that Jackie Baillie's amendment was voted down today. It was clear during the passing of the bill that mental health legislation covers people that are not mentally ill, people with learning difficulties and other conditions such as autism. They need additional support, but their condition is not a mental illness, albeit at times that they are predisposed to mental illness due to their isolation from wider society. We need laws that not only support and protect them but go further to integrate them into society. Or, I should say, we need laws that change societal attitudes and structures so that they do not face the barriers and attitudes that prevent them from playing their full part. When I was speaking to constituents about the bill, they told me about the lack of services available for people who have personality disorders that do not receive crisis mental health support and are often left for the police to deal with. It is sad that one constituent said to me that this was not necessarily such a bad thing, given that the police often showed more compassion than those providing mental health services. While acknowledging the compassion that the police exercise when dealing with vulnerable people, they should not be the only help available to people with personality disorders who become psychotic. There must be a better way of providing them with emergency mental health support through the health service. There is also a lack of support for carers, especially when the cared for person comes out of hospital. We all know that this transition is a time of the greatest risk of suicide, however carers are often left ignorant of that risk and how they can best support their loved ones. That is not right, and they should have the information and the support that they need to help recovery, especially during those very early stages where the risk is greatest. This is also an issue that was raised with me recently with carers of people who had suffered brain injury. Again, I reiterate that mental health services deal with illness rather than injury and disabilities, and carers are left to care for their loved ones, not knowing how the condition will progress, improve and what, if anything, they can do to enhance and recover. Surely there must be a better way of supporting people in that situation. We need to reassess what is covered by our mental health services and where the gaps are with regard to disabilities and, indeed, brain injuries. We need to make sure that services are available to all and are compassionate and caring. I hope that the Government reviews the current legislation, renews it in order to make it fit for its intended purpose and to ensure that the emergency provision is available for all. I welcome the bill, but I hope that we will deal with the issues of mental health, impairments and brain injuries before too long a time has elapsed. Carers and patients cannot afford to wait much longer. I am pleased to see the mental health bill at this very final stage. I am hopeful of the positive changes, which the bill will bring to the Mental Health Scotland Act 2005, which, as I noted earlier, must have the aim of always protecting the vulnerable, while extending its rights. Like others, I believe that, if it had been amended today in certain areas, the bill would have been so much better. Throughout the bill, we have seen concerns that the patients have not been the focus of the bill. We saw concerns that the rights are compromised for the sake of administrative ease. The issues of patient privacy are not being taken as seriously as they should. Mental health officers and staff are being expected to undertake an overwhelming amount of tasks, all of which are under overstretched resources and reduced workforce numbers. I am pleased to see, however, that, as with other fellow MSPs, there was a wide outreach to a number of key stakeholders and organisations such as the British Psychological Society, Inclusion Scotland, Autism Rights and, of course, SAMH among many others, all helping to improve key components of the bill. We are grateful to all those organisations. I was pleased to see that number of amendments to the bill sought to address some shortfalls, such as Dr Simpson's amendment on psychotropic substances. The ministers moved to safeguard patients' rights by extending notification of detention to a patients' guardian or welfare fair attorney. Jackie Baillie is urging the minister to review the meaning of mental disorder within a specified amount of time, so he is disappointed, of course, that amendment was not supported. I believe that, through successfully amending this piece of legislation, we would have created a stronger bill that would have addressed a number of those shortfalls. However, so much hard work still lies ahead, and that includes addressing the rights of those with learning disabilities. Although the bill aims to help people with a mental disorder access effective treatment quickly and efficiently, I am still concerned about the state of our mental health system in Scotland. We can legislate and we can try to protect the vulnerable and ensure that everyone's rights are protected, but we cannot ignore the condition that the current mental health system is in services that are severely underfunded. Staff is overworked, and all of that is against a background of growing numbers of people from all ages coming forward and asking for help and support. However, most importantly, Deputy Presiding Officer, and this is a provision lacking from the wider legislative framework in Scotland as the fact that mental health is not yet enshrined in law as being equally important as physical health. I am pleased that steps are taken by this Parliament—just a second and I shall. I am pleased that steps are taken by this Parliament to address mental health, but I remain worried about how much longer we will have to wait until we see serious action taken to close the disparity. The member, again I praise the member for his consistency of raising this issue, will not rehearse again the fact that it was already the case that there is equality in law, but he suggests that there was the need to legislate. Here we have had a legislative vehicle, and we have had a mental health bill. I am not aware of Mr Doome having brought forth an amendment to that effect. We did look into that and we realised that the bill was so structured that you could not change it to put the parity in. We know that mental health is not just an issue that affects a small and invisible group of people. It will affect one in four Scots at some point through their lives. We are also seeing children and adolescents being admitted to hospitals in growing numbers due to self-harmonating disorders. People at work are taking more and more days off with underlying causes such as depression and anxiety. Our society continues to attach a stigma to those conditions. I will finish by saying that I am hopeful that we are taking the right steps today in helping our fellow citizens to get better access to treatment while ensuring that their rights are protected. I hope to see further action taken forward in law and in practice so that we can create a mental health system in Scotland that sets the standard to be followed and is fit for the future. We shall be supporting the bill at decision time today. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This is a very important piece of legislation that is very close to me personally for a number of reasons. I have experience of close family members who have gone through periods of mental ill health and some who are continuing to go through periods of mental ill health. The issue is one that I have a very strong interest in. Aside from that, there is also the issue around the learning disability autistic spectrum disorder matter, and I will perhaps touch on that first. There is often a feeling that, in politics, we seek to invent division where division does not exist. The reason for the amendment being rejected is that I accept that the intention behind the amendment from Jackie Baillie and what it sought to do was broadly supported. Indeed, it was supported by those benches as well. That is why the minister has committed repeatedly to undertaking the review. The reason why it was rejected from my perspective was that I felt that there were technical elements of it that I felt might have constrained the process at a later stage. I think that one of the things that perhaps would be helpful, and I am interested to know if the minister might be open to this, is perhaps an early stakeholder event that could be wide-ranging and could look at, for example, terms of reference for the review and other matters to be considered. That might be an opportunity, I think, as an article of good faith for those on different sides of the chamber who have expressed some doubt as to the commitment of the Scottish Government. That might be a helpful approach to take, and I wonder if the minister might perhaps deal with that in his closing remarks. In terms of the comments that were made by Jim Hume, one of the other difficulties that we often face in politics is that we overstate the situation that affects sections of society, sections of our health service. There is no doubt that there are pressures faced by mental health services, pressures that are faced by all of our health services, it is the nature of the health service that it will find itself facing pressures because it is a demand-led service. People will seek out support and help as they require it. The difficulty that I have is that if we look back prior to the SNP Government coming into being, if we look at the situation as it was then, there has been remarkable improvement in terms of how mental health is dealt with in terms of the funding that is allocated towards mental health services, in terms of the driving down of waiting times in terms of mental health services. I do not disagree for one second that there is more to be done. Indeed, the minister himself has said on repeated occasion that there is more to be done in terms of mental health waiting times, but I think that anybody who was to look at the situation as inherited and where we have got to now would be hard pressed, I think, not to say that there has been progress made in these areas. That is not to say that there is more to be done. That is why I think that it is welcome that the minister has, on more than one occasion, announced funding allocations specifically to drive improvement in terms of mental health services. Funding is not the only answer in all of this, and the funding that is meant to mental health services, while important, is focused often on dealing with problems as they have arisen. We cannot prevent all mental health conditions from arising because we know that mental health can affect anybody in society at any time, but we can look at and see where in society there is perhaps more occurrences of certain mental health problems. Are they linked to perhaps some of the societal pressures that are being faced? In particular, one of the things that I would welcome the opportunity for us to look at perhaps not in this Parliament but perhaps elsewhere is the pressures that are now facing our young people in society. Young people now face a great deal of pressures through their interactions with one another, through social media usage, and the impacts that that can have on young people's mental health is something that merits further examination at some stage in the future. However, I welcome the legislation, and I hope that it receives unanimous support at decision time. I also welcome the bill. As ever, at stage 3, we have to decide whether the glass is half empty or half full, because on the one hand we certainly welcome the fact that several amendments were put forward and accepted both at stage 2 and stage 3, but on our side of the chamber we are clearly disappointed that some good amendments were rejected by the Government today. I should also say to the minister that I suppose that it is quite a small glass compared to the original one. I note that he had 48 amendments to deal with today. At stage 3 in 2003 there were 756 amendments, and at stage 2 in 2003 there were 1,367. I will give way to that. Kevin Stewart speaks to my collaborative and open approach at stage 2. Well, I think that we were collaborative then as well. However, the nature of the bill clearly was, as an amendment bill, although there may well be a need for a wider review in due course, not only of the learning disability issue, which I hope will proceed without delay, but also in the longer run in terms of how the act interacts with the Adults with Incapacity Act, given their different and overlapping functions and the different definitions of incapacity. However, in terms of progress, all that is against the principles of the original bill in terms of reciprocity, at least restrictive alternative and so on. All the things that we have discussed today relate to what was set up by that bill in terms of the mental health tribunal, the name person, the advocacy rights and so on. In terms of progress, at stage 2, yes, it is good that changes were made in terms of the extension of short-term detention from 5 to 10 days in the original bill being reversed and also in terms of the proposal for a default name person being rejected at committee. Today we have had progress on the suspension of detention, on two Richard Simpson amendments, on statistical information and the review of deaths in detention on advocacy. Perhaps one of the most welcome advances today, and I will credit to the minister for that. Also, Bob Doris's amendment about publicising support, health boards publicising support for people making advance statements. However, we are disappointed that there is not a stronger duty to promote advance statements on that side. We are also disappointed about the limited progress on levels of security, but we will not rerun that debate at this time. Also, I am very disappointed that there was no movement on psychologists. At one point, the minister, perhaps it was in committee, invoked the fact that that was not appropriate in an amending bill, but that was a very discreet change. I think that, particularly given that the proposal was for that to be done in regulations, it was unfortunate that that opportunity was completely rejected by the minister today. Of course, there are other issues from the McManus review that perhaps have not been taken up by the legislation. We welcome the fact that many of his recommendations were taken up, but the Equal Opportunities Committee report on McManus in 2010 is worth looking at, because they were focusing very much on the equality issues of McManus and the original legislation, and equality was one of the 10 Milan principles. I think that there are still concerns about equality groups in relation to that. For example, young people—we know that there is still an issue about young people in adult beds—and the other issue that McManus and the Equal Opportunities highlighted was the section 25 to 31 duties of local authorities to promote the wellbeing and social development of all persons in the area who have or have had mental disorders. Again, that is something that has been out with the scope of the amendment bill, but we should not forget those wider aspects of mental health. I welcome all the progress that has been made in mental health, but we have all seen the horrifying story on today's front pages from my own area about a postnatal depression tragedy that arose because the service was not available for the women in question. We know that there is a lot to do, but we welcome the progress that has been made on mental health in general, and we welcome the progress that has been made in this bill today. Thank you very much. We now move to closing speeches. I would also like to commend the members of the health committee for their sterling work on this mental health bill. I give credit to all progress that is contained in the bill. I do appreciate that it is a step in the right direction, but I think that we would be failing in our duty to mental health if we did not put on record just how much more there is to do. In terms of Jackie Baillie's amendment, she was asking for a review. I think that it is reasonable that the minister said that he would conduct a review, but I would also put on the record that we were promised the Sandra Grant review of mental health services in 2004. We thought that we were very reasonable in giving that review 10 years to be completed, and 2014 came and went, as they say, and we are still waiting for it. I know that it is supposed to be coming later this year, but I think that the Government needs a prod in the right direction. In preparing for this debate, I looked at my closing speech in March 2003 for the mental health bill. It was weak before the dissolution of Parliament, and I spoke that it was with a sigh of relief, rather than a sense of pride, that I passed the bill, given the huge number of amendments. What I did say at that time, and I think that others said as well, the legislation would only be effective if health boards and local authorities gave it the priority it deserves. On local authorities, I looked up the policy memorandum and, in paragraph 168, it states that the Scottish Government does not consider that the measures in this bill have any disproportionate effect on local government, and it also states the role of mental health officers who will be affected in terms of the bill. It would seem that the Scottish Government has not been listening to the many calls—I give credit to Jim Hume and many others—in this chamber, highlighting the drastic shortage of mental health officers across Scotland and the increased workload that this Parliament has imposed on them. At Highland Council last week, it was stated that mental health officer reports legally required under the Adults Within Capacity Act, legally required within three weeks, or taking three years. Just because this patient group is unlikely to complain is no good reason for not providing sufficient staff to ensure that the support is given. I do not disagree with the abolition of ring fence funding for local authorities, but the Scottish Government should, at the very least, ensure that local authorities are fulfilling their statutory obligations in line with the bills that we have passed today and previous acts of Parliament. It is worth looking at why mental health should be a priority. Up to 75 per cent of people using illegal drugs have a mental health issue, Audit Scotland report. Up to 50 per cent of people with alcohol problems have a mental health issue, often called self-medication. Seven in every ten prisoners are identified as having mental health problems. One in every three visits to a GP is for a mental health issue, and about 9 per cent of our population is on antidepressants. However, given that the bill is looking at accessing of treatment, can I just say that the Milan principles, number one, people with mental disorder shoot whenever possible, retain the same rights and entitlements as those with other health needs. It is there. So why, if they have the same entitlement as others, given the CAMHS target for 90 per cent to be seen in 18 weeks? Only eight health boards meet this target, and in Tayside, only 35 per cent of children are seen within 18 weeks, within average median weight of 49 weeks. That's not good enough. In March of this year, 4,200 children are waiting to start treatment in a calm service. It's not good enough. If that wasn't bad enough that 4,200 children are waiting, I was absolutely shocked to read that, for psychological therapies, the waiting list is 17,530, up 1,500 since the minister took office. So can I just say that the Government needs to look at how positive mental health can influence physical health? We don't need more legislation, we simply mean a better understanding, more empathy, a better working together. It needn't cost more money. Thank you so much. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This bill was a modest one, but, as Mark McDonald and Jenny Marra have said, it was an important one. It was based on the McManart reporter, though, as Markum Chisholm reminded us, the level of amendments to the original 2003 bill were massive, whereas here it was fairly modest. Even then, not all the McManart proposals were included. I welcome the fact that the Government has listened carefully to the evidence in the stage 1 report and stage 2 debates. As a result, I am able to welcome and commend them for recognising some of the concerns that led them to withdraw some of the original proposals, such as the 10-day proposed extension to tribunal hearings, the length of time to appeal against transfer, and today the withdrawal of the proposed extension of the community treatment order suspension period, which was proposed, should be by further 100 days. I also particularly welcome in this bill the victim notification scheme and some of the other measures in the act, which will undoubtedly help the mental health and care and treatment of people in Scotland. I regret the fact that the nurse's power to detain was not left as it was. I still do not understand where that came from and what the consultation was about. It is simply tightening it up and making it simpler is fine, but the existing cases were not being reported to the Mental Welfare Commission in the first place, and I think that that is what needs to be tightened rather than the rules of the two of three hour ability to detain. I regret also the fact that many of my amendments were ejected, and indeed, of course, that of Jackie Baillie and Annette Milne. They were made after careful consideration of the evidence presented and, of course, discussions and support that was received from a number of organisations. Notwithstanding the rejection, I hope, many of them will be part of the wider review that the Government has already instructed civil servants to start thinking about. I welcome that sense of urgency that I think the minister is lending to this, and I hope that he will be able to continue to apply that pressure. The issue of learning disability or intellectual impairment and also autism spectrum disorder will need to be addressed. Mark McDonald called for a wider stakeholder conference to look at the remit of the review, and I hope that the minister will consider that. I hope very much that, actually, this review will not be some sort of internal review leading to a bill, but it will be a full-blown commission of the sort that Milan had. We have a situation in which Milan and McManus recommended that all the acts, the 95 criminal procedure act, the 2000 incapacity act, the 2003 mental health and care and treatment act and the 2007 protection of honourable adults act must all be considered. That is, as the minister said previously, quite a complex issue and will require our commission with some standing to be able to command broad support. If we begin with the sort of conference that Mark McDonald was suggesting, then we may be able to at least have a remit that is appropriate. There are serious concerns about a range of issues. The right to refuse treatment, which is a fundamental right, and yet it is not applied to those with mental health, except under certain specific conditions. Not if they give an advanced statement that was rejected today. The use of psychoactive medicines, which I believe is still far too widespread. I think that the fact that antidepressants were being used and increasing my amounts was perhaps appropriate because GPs were learning to prescribe for longer periods of time and inappropriate dosages, but the amounts have gone on rising, and that really is becoming a matter of concern, although I know that particular target has been dropped. There is the vexed question of the difference in application between a seriously impaired decision making ability under the treatment of the 2003 act and the definition of incapacity under the 2000 act, and that needs to be addressed. There is the question of the use of physical restraint addressed for children, but I think that it needs to be looked at again for adults, where I feel that it may be being inappropriately used in one or two situations. The numbers that are adversely affected by the issues that I have mentioned may be small, but even one is too many. I do believe that the guidance of good care and treatment should have more powers. The Mental Welfare Commission in its many and helpful reports draws attention on too many occasions in which they have not been able to get the information that they required. The acceptance of amendments 25, 35 and 36 will undoubtedly help, but I still believe that Scotland needs regulators with teeth. Unless we have that, then just having them for small sections such as HEI on some occasions by the Mental Welfare Commission is not enough. I think that HIS, the Care Inspectorate and the Mental Welfare Commission, we need to look at that again. We decided not to integrate them at the last reform, and I think that that was correct at the time, but I think that there are issues around there that may need to be looked at. I agree and disagree with Mark McDonald on his comments on mental health. I agree that there has been progress, for example in care plans for severe and enduring mental illness, but in child and adolescent mental health the admission to adult wards after some progress, which was welcomed by the Mental Welfare Commission, has gone back since 2009, as Malcolm Chisholm reminded us. Mary Scanlon listed a number of issues, including the number of MHOs that have reduced the ability of local authorities to deal with mental health issues and listed a number of other concerns that I agree with, particularly in relation to prisoners, where I think that there is far more needs to be done. I will grant your attention to the issue of personality disorders, which are still not being managed effectively in Scotland, but also to intellectual payment associated with brain damage. I will conclude by thanking all those who gave evidence, and the many organisations who helped me to formulate the amendments and agreements supporting the issues raised. I want to thank the Parliament legislative team who is drafting in response to the changes that I saw. We are always patient and often creative. I think that the debates have been in value of only to inform the review. We have made great progress since 1999, but we need to keep moving forward, recognising the changes, particularly in neurodevelopmental science, but also in culture. We need to change things. Labour will have a support the bill fully tonight. Thank you, Dr Simpson. I now call on Jamie Hepburn to wind up the debate. Minister, until 6.50 please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I thank members for their contributions to this debate. I will try to cover as much ground as I can. Although this bill has a relatively narrow focus, many of the provisions within it will make a real difference for service users. Jenny Marra said at the outset that she was right to talk of the constituent's approach as about many issues relating to mental health. I suppose that it is always important to have them in mind as we take this work forward. The bill has, at its heart, the aim of protecting service users' rights and interests and ensuring the system under the 2003 act works as effectively as possible. As I said before, I am grateful to members and stakeholders for working with the Government to get the provisions exactly right. I think that it has been a collaborative process. We have been able to work with the committee very effectively to make sure that the bill is as good as it possibly can be. The bill is only part of the Government's wider programme to improve mental health services. The road grant is right to say that there is more that has to be done. She and other members can be assured that my focus will always be on that. It is important nonetheless that those who need compulsory treatment under this act are able to access treatment quickly and to have their rights and interests protected. The bill will play a key part in assurance. Jenny Marra raised some concerns about the bill's compatibility to the ECHR. Let me take very seriously the responsibility to have due regard to human rights. It is essential, from a human perspective, that it is a legal requirement, too. The bill is underpinned by a variety of processes of appeal and rights to express a view that I believe is compatible with the ECHR. I am unaware of any ruling that says the Mental Health Act. The bill is not so compatible. Let me assure her that I will always listen to and respond to concerns that are seriously raised. A variety of members raised the issue of the review of the inclusion of learned disability and autistic spectrum disorders and the scope of mental health. I recognise that there has been a disappointment out there that the review has not taken place sooner. Let me be clear, Presiding Officer, I made the commitment to that review in the stage 1, in the Government's response to the stage 1 report of the committee. I should make the point that that was a commitment made in advance of stage 2 amendments and in advance of stage 3 amendments. It is a serious commitment. Work has tentatively begun to engage with stakeholders. Again, I hope that that is an indication of our serious intent. Bob Doris asked whether that would be a rights-based approach. I have taken the view that he can be assured that I can absolutely commit to that being the process that will follow. Mark McDonald and Dr Simpson latching on to Mr McDonald's suggestion. I am absolutely open to a stakeholder event early on, as has been suggested, to help move the process forward. I will make sure that the Scottish Government officials move forward on that basis. Let me say that there is no disagreement across the chamber on the need for a review. Yes, the Government was not able to support the amendment that was presented earlier. That is not because of the principle but because of some of the specific mechanisms. There was a hard timescale that I do not think is necessarily helpful to ensuring that we have the fullest review possible. Moreover, more substantially, there was provision on the face of that amendment for removing learned disabilities from the definition of mental health disorder by way of regulation if that is what the review concluded had to be done. I am not necessarily convinced that that is the best way forward in the sense that it would similarly remove all the protections and rights that those with learned disability have under the act without replacing them. I do not think that any of us would want to proceed on that basis. I think the point that was made earlier about the need for proper scrutiny of any new measures that would potentially be brought forward is a valid one. I am not convinced that it could necessarily be as readily done by way of bringing forward regulations. Let me be clear that the review will be participative and we have not yet determined how the review will be exactly conducted. We want to involve stakeholders in shaping it. I am committed that the review will begin as soon as possible. I do not want to put an artificial timescale on its conclusion. The timescale that was set out in the amendment may be possible. Let me make my commitment. I want the review to be concluded as soon as possible. It is important that we do not curtail that review, especially in light of the fact that I have also committed to including in that review the issues around the psychotropic substances and the issues around the inclusion of psychologists in the scope of that particular piece of legislation. Jim Human, Mary Scanlon, made reference to the burdens that we place as a parent through our legislation on mental health officers.  As I said earlier, the Government has announced an additional £85 million investment over the next five years, without taking our total additional investment that was announced in May and November of last year. Mental health services to £100 million. The Scottish Government has also undertaken a scoping exercise to gather evidence around the capacity of the mental health officer. A workforce that includes data provided in mental welfare commission reports and in the Scottish Social Services Council's most recent workforce data report on mental health officers in Scotland will be considering the draft report of that work in due course, of course. Thank you. I appreciate you giving way. I gave the example of the adults within capacity bill where Highland councils should statutorily provide a report by a mental health officer in three weeks and they cannot do it in three years. Can I ask about giving the £150 million, I think that you said? How does that impact on workforce planning? Does that mean that are there more mental health officers coming through the system? I think that it is important to clarify that £150 million is still a substantial sum of money, I am sure that Mary Scanlon will agree. There are a range of ways that can be used to improve systems on the ground and it could potentially be utilised in this area, I suppose. Let me turn to the issue that was raised by Malcolm Chisholm around the issue of advanced statements and the need for further promotion. The mental health commission is currently taking forward a project to promote advanced statements and indeed the amendment proposed by Bob Doris will complement that work. As I said to Mr Chisholm earlier at the amendment stage, I have also suggested that the code of practice working group could look further to see if the guidance that they have could help to promote the use of advanced statements. I think that it is essential that we see advanced statements used on a wider basis and I am serious about us working to that end. I have heard general support for this bill across the chamber and I think that that is very welcome. I have heard some disappointment that some amendments have not been accepted. I should say that I understand that. I think that they have all been made earnestly, but I have felt that they are not necessarily an effective way for it. I also recognise that, as Mary Scanlon said, beyond this bill there is more to do. This bill is only part of that work. I commend the bill to the chamber, but members can also be assured, my commitment to doing everything that the Scottish Government can do to ensure a better sense of mental wellbeing right across Scotland. Thank you. That ends the debate on the Mental Health Scotland Bill. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 13608, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against motion should press a request speak button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 13608. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 13607, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a stage 2 timetable for the Harbour Scotland Bill. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request speak button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 13607. The next item of business is consideration of a Parliamentary Bureau motion. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 13609, on the designation of a lead committee. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. I am minded to accept a motion without notice to bring forward decision time to now. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move this motion. The question is that decision time will be brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that motion number 13599, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on the Mental Health Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed, and the Mental Health Scotland Bill is there for passed. The next question is that motion number 13609, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on the designation of a lead committee, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business, members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.