 Can therefore, that concludes the debate on a resilience fund for kalmach disruption, it's now time to move on to the next item of business, which's an urgent question, and I call Sandesh Gulhani. To us the Scottish Government what is responses to the announcement that Scottish junior doctors have voted overwhelmingly to reject the pay-off that is made by the Scottish Government, and plan to take strike action? Cabinet Secretary, Michael Matheson, I up take no厚. Rhewn llawer y ddechrau thiru yng Nghymru yn diolchol yn ffordd o ddod aluun o 14.5% ar gynnig o datblygu i'r rhai tyd ac wedi'u gweld ei wneud am yfodol, ac mae'n gynnig i fynd i ddefnyddio. Rwy'n uwch i'r Gweithio thosebeth, mae'n ddigidio myfyrdd â'r ddod ddechrau thiru, persona ar y ddechrau mwy f outgoing ond y ddechrau ei dweud o'r 20 yr unig, ac mae'n rhaid i'r prynwys môrgyngiau i fyfyrdd i'r ddod o'r ddod o ddod i'r ddodechrau ac yn ddegweller iawn i ddullu'r hyfforddiwydau yma er mewn cyfinnidau ei gy ferch ymlaen yn hynny. Mae bwysig i chi ddim yn ymgyrch gynhwys eu ddweud i sicrhau ddamgen oherwydd cais ddisziadraeth y gall technology-accurus yn ddweud, wedi i gyd yn ffondig i gyd o ddweudion wedi hyd wedi'i gyd yn cael ei ddweud. Fy hwnnau ei gyd y ddweud i chi ddweud yr unrhyw ond ddych chi'n ddweud a'u nhw'n dhalogau wych yn ei wneud hynny i wneud. Sandesh Ghohani. is at rock bottom in the Scottish Health Service. Given the precarious nature of our services, can the cabinet secretary guarantee that the current offer and any further offers and future offers that he will make will not be taking funding away from crucial front line services? I must confess that I have heard of leading with your chin in a debate but this is some brass neck that the Conservative party has on a very day when in England junior doctors are on a third round of industrial action because a failure of the Conservative government in England to even engage with them, meaning fully, is quite stark. I am sure that Nissa Gohani recognises how important we recognise this issue as, which is why we have been in detailed negotiations with junior doctors over a considerable period of time and why the BMA viewed the offer that was made to them as being credible enough to put to their members. I can assure the member that I will not do that. I will not disrespect junior doctors in the way in which his colleagues in England have. I will engage with them in a serious and meaningful way and with a sense of humility to try to address the concerns and the issues that they have, rather than arrogantly dismissing their issues of concern, as colleagues and Westminster are doing. However, I am assured that I will continue to engage with them in a way that seeks to try to address their concerns and to find a resolution to the matter because I believe that it is in everyone's interest across our NHS and our wider society to make sure that junior doctors are treated with respect and get the type of support and assistance that they require. Quite frankly, the cabinet secretary did not even bother to answer the question that was put to him. As a NHS GP who is currently working, I can categorically tell you how difficult things are right now. Health is devolved in Scotland. Simply put, this is your mess to fix. Of course, our junior doctors deserve a fair pay-offer, but the SNP Government has consistently neglected other areas of terms and conditions. Poor workforce planning, lack of access to nutritious meals and a culture that does not value front-line staff has all contributed to those strikes. Can the cabinet secretary guarantee that his issue will be addressed when he next sits with the junior doctors, as he said, tomorrow? Will he actually answer my question from the last time? I think that Mr Gohan is getting himself into a guddle on this particular issue. Let me be quite clear. It is not just me. It is not just the cabinet secretary for health who is saying what we are doing with the BMA. Let me just quote from the BMA today in the letter that it issued. It is exceptionally relevant to the point that has been raised by the member. A letter that is to Ruthie Sunack on this particular issue. Can we please have silence in the chamber when a member is on their feet, putting or responding to a question? So, as it says in the letter, I quote, As you will be aware, there with no additional funding, both the Welsh and the Scottish Government have recognised the real terms cut to doctors pay, yet your Government still refuses to acknowledge pay erosion. This is a letter from the BMA recognising that we as a Government understand and are concerned about the issues that junior doctors have, pointing out the heartless, empty rhetoric that has come from the UK Government and his colleagues at Westminster. I am sure—I do not know whether the member is a member of the BMA, but it is very clear from the BMA that the Conservative party—his party leader—is not interested in the interests of junior doctors. However, what I can assure the member, and I am sure that his colleagues will want to hear this, is that I will do everything that I can to try to address their concerns. I will negotiate with them in a meaningful and genuine way. What I will not do to junior doctors is to dismiss them as though they are not interested in their concerns in the way in which his colleagues and his party leader at Westminster have done. He can be assured that we will do the right thing by junior doctors, unlike his colleagues in Westminster. The cabinet secretary has already referenced the BMA that he wrote to Rishi Sunak, asking to meet him urgently to find a resolution to the on-going dispute in England. Can the cabinet secretary outline what engagements the Scottish Government has had with the BMA to address those concerns, while the UK Government continue to fail to listen to junior doctors? Cabinet secretary, I am going to be meeting again with the BMA tomorrow to discuss these matters. I have had extensive engagement with the BMA. We have very positive relationships in terms of engaging around this particular issue, and I want to very much keep it in that footing. I did hear from a centre position some people saying, questioning this issue about the letter from the BMA, why is it relevant. The reason it is relevant is because it references the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government's efforts to try and resolve the issue, unlike their counterparts in Westminster. Maybe there is some backbone in the Tory benches to stand up for junior doctors in Scotland, rather than as ever, as ever, pender to their Westminster masters when it comes to dealing with those issues. Jackie Baillie, can I welcome the cabinet secretary's comments so far, but gently point out to him that pay erosion began in 2008, the same period that the SNP has been in government for. Half of junior doctors are actively considering leaving to work elsewhere, so can the cabinet secretary advise what additional action he can take to avoid a strike and to avoid losing junior doctors from the NHS completely? Can he also advise of any contingency arrangements should his discussions fail? Let me deal with the last point first. There are contingency arrangements being put in place just now, and we are engaging with health boards around that. We have been doing that for a number of weeks now to prepare for any potential industrial action, as the member would recognise. I would also gently remind Jackie Baillie the issue of pay erosion starting in 2008. Junior doctors' pay settlements are agreed through the DDRB process, which applies across the whole of the UK. Labour Governments in Wales and at the UK level have applied that as well during that period of time, and we have applied it, and we have always been committed to that. One of the things that we agreed with the junior doctors' committee on was their desire to move to a new pay negotiation process, and we committed to doing that, to establish that process. We were prepared to take that work forward in order to make sure that it was in place by September of this year, and it is something that I stand by and will continue to offer to them as we move forward. However, junior doctors too now have been committed to the DDRB process, as her colleagues in Wales are, as is the case in England as well. It has been a well-established approach to try and apportion it as though it is more of a blame on the SNP than anyone else is simply wrong and would be misleading to do so. We have always honoured the recommendations in that process. We are now in a situation in which junior doctors wish to take a different approach, and the only Government in the UK so far that has been committed to doing that is the Scottish Government. I stand by that commitment that I have given to the BMA and will continue to work with them over the coming weeks to look at how we can make further progress on this issue. I find it very poor that SNP-backed benches were jeering and moaning when Dr Gilhane declared his interest as a practising general practitioner. It is a level of contempt from the back benches of the SNP that primary healthcare workers are all too familiar with. The cabinet secretary's predecessor put great sore in the fact that Scotland did not have healthcare strikes, yet, come July, that could be proved wrong and those words could come back to haunt him. It will mean that every ward is a little less safe. Every weight in a hospital or for treatment is perhaps a little longer, so what does the cabinet secretary have to say to those patients waiting in pain? I presume that the member is keen for us to try to avoid industrial action. What we have always done in relation to the disputes that we have had with health unions is to engage with them in a constructive way in order to try to seek a resolution to those matters. That approach today has allowed Scotland to be the only part of the UK in which we have been able to avoid industrial action in our NHS. I would have thought that, at the very least, the member would have welcomed that partnership approach in working with trade unions to try to address the issues of concern that their members have. We have taken that approach into our engagement with the junior doctors committee of the BMA. I am continuing to be committed to that approach with them. We will re-engage tomorrow and we will look to see what further progress we can make going forward. I do not believe that industrial action is in anyone's interest. Ultimately, it will be a decision for junior doctors to make and whether they choose to take industrial action. However, I will do everything that I can to try to avoid that. I will engage with them in a meaningful way through the negotiation process to try to achieve that. If we are able to achieve that, we will be able to make sure that we can move on in addressing the issues of concern that junior doctors have. Thank you. That concludes the urgent question. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 9501, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Minister, no member has asked to speak on the motion and the question is that motion 9501 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed, and the next item of business is consideration of business motion 9502, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on timetabling of a bill at stage 1. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request-to-speak button now. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you. No member has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 9502 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed, and the next item of business is consideration of five parliamentary bureau motions. I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move motions 9503 and 9504 on approval of SSIs, 9505 and 95024 on designation of a lead committee and 95038 on committee membership. I will move the motion. Thank you. The question on the motions will be put at decision time. There are seven questions to be put as a result of today's business. If the amendment in the name of Michael Matheson is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Sandish Gilhane will fall. The first question is that amendment 9462.2, in the name of Michael Matheson, which seeks to amend motion 9462 in the name of Jackie Baillie, on taking action on NHS waiting times, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.