 Mae cwestiynau ar gyfer 8150.1 yn y neim Gwladog Lumsden, ein bod wedi bod yn ei hwnnw'n mwyfodol 8150 yn y neim Gwladog Adam yn y ddiogelion ysgolfedd ysgolfaeth ynglyn â gyllideb amser ac mae'n gwybod i'r gweithio'r gwaith. Mae'r gweithio erioed. Mae'r gweithio'r gweithio ar gyfer 8150.1 yn y neim Gwladog Lumsden yn 56.00, yn 65.00. Mae gennym ni'n gweithio'r gweithio ysgolfaith yn gweithio. The next question is that amendment 8150.2 in the name of Neil Bibby, which seeks to amend business motion 8150 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on changes to this week's business, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 8150.2 in the name of Neil Bibby is yes, 22, no, 94, there were five abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that business motion 8150 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on motion 8150 in the name of George Adam is yes, 97, no, 22, there was one abstention, the motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 8151 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on stage one timetable for a bill and I call on George Adam to move the motion. I call on Paul O'Kane to speak to a move amendment 8151.1. I rise to move the amendment in my name. This week we have heard much about the proposed national care service bill, but not in this chamber, but in the newspapers and of course on our televisions. Indeed, on last night's unedifying SNP hustings, I think that is putting it mildly. Indeed, positions on the national care service bill have been shifting quicker than the bureau and this Parliament can keep up with. The national care service was discussed, sorry, ramied over last night by the candidates. Indeed, it has been clear since the start of the leadership campaign that each of the candidates are now articulating a different form of pause to the proposed national care service bill. I am pleased that the SNP leadership candidates have accepted what Scottish Labour, trade unions, professional bodies and local government have been arguing for months. Mr O'Kane, if you could just give me a moment. I am aware of several conversations that are taking place across the chamber. I'd be grateful if they could wait until members leave the chamber. I know that SNP backbenchers have been comparing the performances of the respects of candidates last night, but clearly there is no unity in the Government on the way forward with the national care service bill. Indeed, in a matter of weeks we have shifted from the health secretary and other senior ministers defending the national care service bills as proposed to the Hilt to the health secretary now admitting that the bill in its current form needs to be paused and overhauled. The Government's motion today suggests that stage 1 timetable should be moved to June, but the Government has failed to explain why June is the most suitable time. Is it because it is politically expedient for the Government to move stage 1 until after the SNP leadership election once the candidates have finished ripping one another to shreds and the Government has actually cobbled together a common position? How much longer, Presiding Officer, do people who need adult social care need to wait until we have a system that has not been called into dispute by the trade unions, local governments and four parliamentary committees? Those are not my words, Presiding Officer. They are the words of Kate Forbes from last night's debate when she was eviscerating her use of record as health secretary. It appears that Kate Forbes and I agree on something because she is right. If the Government are serious about re-engaging with stakeholders, bringing people back around the table and building confidence in their national care service proposals, then the stage 1 process cannot be moved down the tracks to a more suitable time for the SNP. With no action in between to re-engage those stakeholders, it must be paused until at least the later part of the year in order to give sufficient time for the bill to be redrafted and brought back to this Parliament by a new health secretary for scrutiny. Indeed, that is exactly the position that the current health secretary is now advocating, since his domestician conversion to supporting a pause to the bill. How can that bill proceed on a June timetable when the Government is in such a state of disarray? Indeed, last night it was made abundantly clear for all the public to see that Humzaeus of his own cabinet colleagues do not have faith in his ability to serve as health secretary, with Kate Forbes, of course, saying the quiet part out loud when she less than discreetly admitted she would sack him as health secretary if she became First Minister. We need a proper pause to the national care service bill to allow an opportunity for stakeholders to get back around the table and to make it right. Moving stage 1 until June does not allow sufficient time for the vital work to be undertaken. In the context of this Government being in a total state of disarray, with cabinet colleagues so publicly arguing and contradicting one another, we need a proper pause until at least November to ensure that we have a proposal for a national care service, which is fit for purpose, has the confidence of key stakeholders. That is what we on those benches have argued for consistently, and it is time that the Government got a grip and got on with redrafting the bill. Finally, the SNP has come to the same realisation as the unions, local authorities, its own back benches and the public. The realisation with the committees of this Parliament came to that they agree that the national care service plans are unaffordable, unworkable and a massive distraction from the crisis and care that the SNP has created across Scotland. Even the cabinet secretary responsible for the policy, whom he is using, is beating a hasty retreat from his own policy. He is not alone, of course, because the SNP's leadership candidates are undermining this policy, throwing it overboard as they seek to abandon Nicola Sturgeon's legacy in their desperate bid to captain the SNP's sinking ship. Perhaps the only person in Scotland today who still believes that there will be a national care service is Kevin Stewart. The minister believes that, so long as the music is playing, he is going to get up and dance. The only problem is that, on this national care service, the minister is still dancing, but the music has stopped. However, today's decision should be about whether or not we ditch this bill or delay this bill. The national care service is clearly wrong for Scotland and the policy is in disarray. Only last night we saw the fishers laid bare as two ministers and one former minister trashed policies from the manifesto upon which they themselves were elected. It is no surprise that the Government is now seeking to delay this bill, but to try and hide why they are doing it from this Parliament is an outrage. The minister and the cabinet secretary must come before Parliament and explain their concerns about the bill as it is currently constituted and are climbed down to members of the chamber. The vote today is still not going far enough. What the Parliament should be voting for today is to scrap the SNP's failing social care plans, because social care in Scotland is in crisis. The thing that carers, staff and patients need is a major bureaucratic overhaul of the system, which would see precious resources diverted away from the front line and into employing hundreds more management in admin staff. The SNP must listen to those voices, abandon those plans and put every penny into front line care, but in the absence of a total withdrawal of this plan, we support a delay and a longer delay proposed by Labour. However, those delays, whether to June or November, will inevitably be only a precursor to the legislation being scrapped once the SNP's divisive leadership election comes to a close. We simply cannot afford to see £1.3 billion diverted away from front line local services at a time when the sector is crying out for help. Mr Hoy, if I could just stop you there, I am deeply frustrated that there are a number of conversations that are carrying on while a member is addressing this Parliament. Can we please treat members who are speaking with the respect that he should be entitled to? They do not want to hear about the division in their own ranks. That is why the Government must come to this Parliament, make its position clear and allow members to ask the questions that councils, carers, the third sector and those who rely on care and who live in care now want answered. The national care service plan should be ditched. It should not just be delayed. I call on George Adam to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. Thank you, Presiding Officer. That was a very interesting 10 minutes. None of it has to do with reality whatsoever. To bring everyone else in the Opposition benches back into the real world with ourselves, the Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to delivering our plans for a national care service. Change of this scale is necessary to deliver the consistency and quality of care support that the people of Scotland deserve, making Scotland a fairer and more equal place to live. Extending the stage 1 deadline for the national care service bill is necessary due to the rightly complex and extensive scrutiny by several committees. Doing so will allow the lead committee more time to work on its stage 1 report, while also ensuring that the Government can comprehensively consider the report and its response. The health and social care and sport committee agreed with the rationale for extending and are content with the revised deadline of Friday 30 June 2023. The question is that amendment 8151.1, in the name of Paul O'Kane, which seeks to amend business motion 8151, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on stage 1 timetable for a bill, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to vote. The result of the vote on amendment 8151.1, in the name of Paul O'Kane, is yes 55, no 65, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that business motion 8151, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on stage 1 timetable for a bill, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 8152, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on stage 2 timetable for a bill. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request-to-speak button now, and I call on George Adam to move the motion. I'm busy today, Presiding Officer, moved. Thank you, minister. No member has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 8152 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion 8153, on approval of an SSI, and I ask George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion. Thank you, and I call on Edward Mountain. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and before we have any more comments, I remind members of my entry in the register of interest, which shows that I own rental properties in Murray. Six months ago, this Government rushed through legislation without consultation to freeze rents and continue an eviction ban across Scotland. Whilst the policy appeared well-intentioned, the Scottish Conservatives repeatedly warned the minister that it would have damaging consequences for the housing sectors. Those warnings fell on deaf ears. The minister knew better, but clearly he didn't. Since the legislation has passed, we have seen plans to build 11,000 new affordable home in Glasgow paused. That is a billion pounds of investment halted. House builders and landlords have lost confidence in the Government, and to prove it, the Landlord Association has lodged a judicial review of this emergency legislation. If the Scottish Government loses the case, it could be liable to compensate all those who are affected. I am not sure if the minister has even considered that. However, the minister now wants the Parliament to extend the provisions of the act for a further six months, allowing a 3 per cent rental rise in the private sector and an unregulated rise in the social sector. The big question to most people is how the Government came up with the 3 per cent figure. Was it evidence or was this figure plucked from thin air? I believe the minister needs to justify it by sharing his workings, because to me it looks no better than a guest much. I believe a rent cap will impede many landlords from having the capital to make increasingly expensive updates to their properties, a lot of which are mandated by legislation. In the long term, it doesn't make financial sense to renovate a private rental sector when a landlord will only ever do the basic minimum or remove it from the rental market. Scotland's rental sector cannot be allowed to shrink. The Government damages the private sector, I believe, at its peril. The sector provides 340,000 homes, but that number is falling and will fall even further if the Government continues to penalise landlords. Let me remind this Parliament that we need every single one of those houses. A drop in the supply of homes will, after all, hurt tenants the most. I believe that this SSI penalises the private rented landlords and in the long term will hurt tenants. I call on members to oppose this SSI. It is based on a guesstimote. I am just in my last minute, but I will give way if I have time. The member really should be concluding. I am sorry, I would have done if I had time. I call on members to oppose this SSI. It is based on a guesstimote. It is bad for landlords, bad for tenants and it is contributing to a collapse in the number of existing rental properties and preventing new ones being bad built. Frankly, I believe that it is bad news for us all. I call on Patrick Harvie. As the whole chamber is well aware, we introduced the cost of living tenant protection Scotland Act last year in order to do three things. To protect tenants stabilising their housing costs by freezing rents, to reduce the impact of eviction and homelessness through a moratorium on enforcement of evictions and to avoid tenants being evicted from the rented sector by a landlord who wants to raise rents between tenants during the temporary measures and reduce unlawful evictions. Since then, the act has provided important additional protection for tenants across the rented sector as we continue to live through these challenging and uncertain economic times. Our updated data and economic analysis, which we published at the start of this year, shows that the unprecedented economic position has not yet fundamentally changed and many households in the private rented sector in particular continue to struggle. It is for this reason that the regulations before the chamber today seek to extend the rent cap measures for the private rented sector, as well as the eviction moratorium provisions across all rented sectors covered by the act and other important provisions within the act for a further six-month period to 30 September. Mark Griffin. I remind the chamber of my register of interest as the owner of a private rented property in North Lanarkshire. We agree that it is right to extend the provisions given the crisis facing household finances, but I would ask the minister how many times will we extend these in a piecemeal fashion? Wouldn't it be better to bring forward the housing bill and have a permanent state of rent controls in this country rather than relying continuing to extend those provisions? Minister. As the member knows, the necessity and proportionality of emergency measures needs to be continually reassessed in the light of events, and that is why the bill that was supported by the Labour Party was structured in the way that it is, but we have committed to introducing the new housing bill as soon as possible after the summer recess this year. I am afraid that I need to move on. We recognise the ongoing impacts of the cost crisis that might be impacting on some private landlords. That is why the regulations propose that the rent cannot be buried to allow for within tenancy rent increases of up to 3 per cent. I am afraid that I have some extra time. I can give it a little time back, but there is half a minute left of the minister's statement. I am afraid that I need to move on quickly in that case. The approach gives a measure of parity in monetary terms, in line with the voluntary rent setting agreement in place with social sector landlords, while continuing to protect tenants from unaffordable rent increases. There is also a safeguard in place for landlords who could alternatively opt to apply to rent service Scotland for a rent increase of up to 6 per cent if they have had an increase in their defined prescribed property costs within a specified period. Not only is this emergency legislation time limited and kept under review, it is important—and I would draw Mr Mountain's attention to this—to recognise that it does not affect initial rent setting, only in tenancy rent increases. In summary, for many years Scotland has led the way on housing issues from abolition of rent to buy, right to buy, security of 10-year for tenants, new provision of social housing and the cost of living care protection act continues to show this leadership. I am proud of that work and I ask Parliament to prove the necessary and unfortunate measures. The question on this motion will be put at decision time, and there are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is the amendment 8137.2, in the name of Megan Gallacher, which seeks to amend motion 8137, in the name of Nicholas Sturgeon on international women's day 2023, embrace equity, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is the amendment 8137.1, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, which seeks to amend motion 8137, in the name of Nicholas Sturgeon on international women's day 2023, embrace equity, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The next question is the motion 8137, in the name of Nicholas Sturgeon, as amended, on international women's day 2023, embrace equity, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The final question is the motion 8153, in the name of George Adam, on approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Mary McCallan. Can I just ask for Ms McCallan's microphone? My app froze, I would have voted yes. The result of the vote on motion 8153, in the name of George Adam, is yes 87, no 31. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time, and we will now move on to members' business, in the name of Ross Greer.