After section 37

Housing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 2:30 pm on 13 June 2001.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Fiona Hyslop Fiona Hyslop Scottish National Party 2:30, 13 June 2001

We move to what is perhaps one of the bill's most controversial aspects—the extension to housing associations of the right to buy. From the time of the bill's introduction, the matter has been the source of much contention and discussion; indeed, there has been some movement from the Executive.

However, the SNP still thinks that to preserve for the future the availability of affordable housing, the Parliament should not extend to housing associations the right to buy. I will be quite clear: the SNP recognises that it should support the existing rights of both council and housing association tenants if they currently have the right to buy. However, we oppose the imposition of the extension of the right to buy on housing association tenants who currently do not have that right.

Amendments 9 and 13 are inextricably linked and should both be agreed to if the argument behind them is to be advanced. It might have been easier if the Executive had put clean copy into the bill and simply transposed the right to buy in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. However, we have had to use a rather mechanical means to stop extension to housing associations of the right to buy. Amendment 13 is a clean-cut amendment that would remove from schedule 9 any reference to the right to buy for registered social landlords. Amendment 9 would preserve the right to buy for all RSLs who currently have it to ensure the status quo for housing associations. We are simply asking that there should be no change that dilutes the availability of affordable housing for housing associations.

We must remember that fewer than 100 council houses have been built in Scotland in the past year—not just in Edinburgh, not just in Glasgow, not just in Fife, but in all Scotland. How can we house the record levels of homeless people when that amount of council housing is being built?

I refer members to housing revenue accounts comparisons. Compared with constant prices in 1999-2000, the housing support grant in 1979-80 was £564 million; the grant in 1999-2000 had fallen to £11 million. Rents currently pay for housing in the council areas in Scotland and the Executive's plans for housing associations will reduce the availability of money for investment in housing. We must preserve our communities, so we must ensure that the bill means balanced communities. How on earth will families be able to stay with their relatives if we destroy the availability of social housing throughout the country?

I have heard arguments that our amendments on the right to buy might affect the modernised right to buy for council tenants, but they would not. They seek merely to keep the status quo for housing associations. The Government has inserted a reference to pressured areas to ameliorate matters and to delay the inevitable. However, the inevitable will happen. Members must look to their consciences and ask themselves what they did on this day to preserve for the future the availability of social rented housing. The only houses that are being built at the moment are housing association houses, which the Executive plans to sell off. That might not happen next year or in five years and it might not happen for 10 years. However, there will still be no houses available.

At issue is the legacy that we pass on to our children and where they will be housed—not in 10 years' time, but in the more distant future. I know that in parts of this city, in other cities and in rural areas there will be no houses available for future generations. This is a test for the Parliament; it is a test of whether we are committed to public housing for the future, which the SNP is. Other members who have the inclination to put their hand where their conscience is should support amendments 9 and 13. The amendments would preserve the status quo and prevent the extension to housing associations of the right to buy.

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour 2:45, 13 June 2001

Several members have indicated that they want to speak in this part of the debate. I ask them all to be as brief as possible.

Photo of Bill Aitken Bill Aitken Conservative

It is ironic that the debate should centre on two of the most positive developments in Scottish housing since the war: the Tenants' Rights etc (Scotland) Act 1980, which enabled people to buy their homes; and housing associations, which are a tremendously positive development, because they enable people to contribute towards their housing future.

The SNP does not have a monopoly on concern about how the legislation might operate. However, as in so many areas, the SNP seems to equate original thought with original sin. All that the bill seeks to do is to give people the opportunity to own their homes. There are safeguards that can be put in place. The Executive has moved some distance since the matter was first mooted. It has instituted the pressured areas scheme. Although it has not gone as far as I would like—which is why I have lodged an amendment to be debated later—it has acknowledged that it must not do anything that is likely to disadvantage the housing association movement.

We must reach a compromise that ensures that people's aspirations for home ownership are fulfilled, while protecting public housing. The Executive has not gone quite as far in that regard as it should, but that can be dealt with when amendment 81, which is in my name, is debated. However, the Conservatives have no hesitation in refuting what Fiona Hyslop said. We will support the Executive.

Photo of John McAllion John McAllion Labour

Great credit is due to the Social Justice Committee for the concessions that it won at stage 2 on the extension of the right to buy. Equal credit is due to the Executive for listening not only to the committee, but to the many critics of the Executive's original proposals to extend the right to buy. The extension of the qualifying period to five years, the new 10-year opt-in for housing associations that were previously excluded from the right to buy and the new proposals for pressured areas make the modified right to buy infinitely preferable to the right to buy that will exist until enactment of the bill.

The Executive's concessions have been widely welcomed. Shelter congratulated the Executive on listening on this occasion. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations accepted that the changes will have a significant impact and that they will limit the effect of the right to buy in the years ahead. At the same time, the same two organisations remain implacably opposed to any extension of the right to buy. So do I. Indeed, I am opposed to the right to buy full stop, not only to an extension of it in a modified form.

Given what Bill Aitken said, it is important to remind ourselves of the parentage of the right to buy. The main arguments surrounding the introduction of the right to buy took place a long time ago—in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Some members were running about in nappies at that time and could not take part in that debate. The right to buy was only one of a raft of right-wing policies—including privatisation, opted-out schools and an NHS market—that were imposed on the people of Scotland by a Government that did not have an electoral mandate in Scotland. I marched in Glasgow with a delegation from Dundee in a great demonstration, and Dundee City Council was cheered to the rafters by thousands of Scots because of its implacable opposition to the implementation of the Tenants' Rights etc (Scotland) Act 1980, which would have forced that council to sell its housing stock. I realise that this is not the 1980s—

Photo of John McAllion John McAllion Labour

No, I will not. David McLetchie gets a lot of time to talk in the chamber—I do not. He can sit down. If he does not like what he is hearing, that is good. I must be on the right track.

Photo of Lord James Selkirk Lord James Selkirk Conservative

If Mr McAllion is so passionately opposed to the right to buy, can he explain to the Parliament why it has been so popular in Scotland and why a higher percentage of Scottish tenants bought their homes than tenants south of the border?

Photo of John McAllion John McAllion Labour

As a former boxer, Lord James has impeccable timing. I was just about to move on to that part of my argument.

It has been said that, because the right to buy has proved popular—more than 300,000 tenants have exercised the right to buy—no sensible party could be opposed to it. In fact, we are all supposed to be in favour of it in principle now, because so many people have exercised that right. I do not accept that. All the people who exercised that right did so as individuals; they did not exercise it as a collective group.

Any individual who was offered an excellent house at a huge discount worth thousands of pounds would not say no to the offer. If Jackie Baillie took our housing budget in a big sack out into the Royal Mile and stood there asking, "Who wants £15,000 to help to buy their house?" nobody would walk past saying, "No thanks." People would be queueing up. However, that would not be a sensible use of public money—it would not be the right thing to do. The fact that something is popular does not mean that it is right for society as a whole.

I believe that we are not only individuals; we are parts of society. It is no accident that the woman who said "There is no such thing as society" was the woman who introduced the right to buy. It is essentially an individualistic action to exercise the right to buy. It represents hundreds of thousands of mini-privatisations throughout Scottish housing and was a principle that was at the core of Tory thinking.

Photo of John McAllion John McAllion Labour

For that reason, I remain opposed to any extension of the right to buy and I shall vote in favour of amendments 9 and 13. I know that voting for the amendments will not change the situation and that the preserved right to buy will still exist, but I recognise that the right to buy is damaging the housing aspirations of the most vulnerable people in society—people who are homeless and on the waiting lists. The right to buy inevitably damages the right to rent, which is why I shall vote against it.

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour

A number of members want to speak on a subject that I know is of great concern to them. I would prefer not to have to ask members to wind up, so I ask them to be brief.

Photo of Brian Adam Brian Adam Scottish National Party

We just heard a wonderful exposition of why there are problems not only with the right to buy, but with the extension of the right to buy. There is very little in what John McAllion said with which I would disagree.

The extension of the right to buy is totally unnecessary. I have heard no evidence that individual housing associations or members of housing associations are seeking it and no evidence to that effect was submitted to the Social Justice Committee. The fact that the Administration is proposing many changes to restrict the right to buy after having granted it proves that point. It is sensible for us to try to restrict the right to buy, and I shall support amendments to that effect if amendments 9 and 13 fall.

The ethos behind the extension of the right to buy is that private is good and public is bad, which is nonsense. However, John McAllion got it wrong when he suggested that people were being offered a massive public subsidy to take away their houses. It is not a public subsidy; the people who pay for the discounts are the other tenants. That is why we have disgraceful situations in places such as Glasgow, where council house rents are far too high because rents are paying for subsidies to those who have exercised their right to buy.

I commend amendments 9 and 13 to members and I am delighted that John McAllion will support them. I suspect that there are many other members of his party group who feel as he does. I encourage them to follow their convictions, rather than the line that has been adopted by new Labour, which is driving down the road towards further privatisation of public housing.

Photo of Maureen Macmillan Maureen Macmillan Labour

I commend the Executive on its efforts to ensure that communities will be preserved in rural areas, contrary to what Fiona Hyslop said. Ministers have been at particular pains to address the concerns of rural housing associations and councils. There are particular problems in the Highlands and Islands, such as the lack of suitable land and the fact that former local authority housing was sold on for holiday homes and was lost to communities. More than a year ago, ministers first met housing providers from Orkney, Shetland, the Western Isles and Highland Council and have been working alongside Highland Council in a pilot scheme to find the best way to tackle the problems of providing housing in pressured rural areas. The Deputy Minister for Social Justice has been to Orkney and Shetland to talk to housing providers.

I am happy with the result that can be seen in the bill. I am sure that it will provide support for communities in rural areas and I am confident that we will find ways of ensuring that houses are not lost in those communities and that more are built.

Photo of Tommy Sheridan Tommy Sheridan SSP

In the 20 years since 1981, Glasgow has sold 38,340 public sector council homes, but has managed to construct fewer than 500. That is a stunning argument against the privatisation of public sector housing. We should make no mistake about it: the right to buy represents the privatisation of council housing.

No socialist is opposed to the right to buy, as long as that right is exercised in the private sector.

However, socialists should be opposed to the right to buy publicly constructed houses. That is why it is a grave pity that no amendment has been lodged that not only opposes the right to buy and its extension, but which supports the deletion of the right to buy and its replacement with a right to rent and a right-to-rent discount.

It is about time that, instead of rewarding people who want to buy their houses, we started rewarding tenants who remain tenants for a long period with reductions in their rents. That would give a bonus to long-term tenants while allowing stock to be retained in the public sector. Surely that is what the Parliament should be trying to do.

Bill Aitken talked about how popular the right to buy has been. I point out to him that 23 per cent of the stock in Glasgow has been sold. That means that 77 per cent has not been sold, which means that many tenants who do not have the option of the right to buy must pay for the fact that other people have exercised the right to buy. That is the problem in places such as Castlemilk—where only 6 per cent of the stock has been purchased—and Easterhouse, where only 9.6 per cent of the stock has been purchased.

Photo of Bill Aitken Bill Aitken Conservative

Will Tommy Sheridan remind us what percentage of Glasgow's housing rents are paid by housing benefit?

Photo of Tommy Sheridan Tommy Sheridan SSP

Approximately 80 per cent of Glasgow's housing rents are paid by housing benefit, which is a direct consequence of the poverty that has been created by 18 years of Tory Government and four years of new Labour Government.

We are in the 21st century and must move forward with a modern attitude to public sector housing. We should defend the stock that we have by renovating and improving it and we should build new stock. We should not allow our publicly owned houses to be sold off. I will vote against the amendments in the group, because they imply that we should retain a right to buy, although the right to buy is no more than the privatisation of council and housing association stock.

Photo of Johann Lamont Johann Lamont Labour 3:00, 13 June 2001

With all respect to Tommy Sheridan and the exception that he may take to this, this is not a debate about the principle of right to buy. I have to say that, as an individual member of the Labour party in the early 1980s, I lost the argument inside my own party when it changed its position on the principle of right to buy. We may not want to be where we are now, with the very contorted position on right to buy that the Tories have introduced, but that is the reality of the situation and we have to deal with it. People have to choose which anomalies they wish to support in relation to policy.

A lot is said about the damage of right to buy in communities. There has been damage in constituencies such as mine, where good properties have disappeared. There have been some benefits in some difficult and poor communities, where people have bought their houses and have invested in their communities. Those communities have then been sustained and developed, and there are examples of that. The key charge that has been made is that the right to buy is a bribe. With the changes that are being proposed with the modernised right to buy, I would defy anybody to lay that charge again. It now much more reflects the balance of subsidies and incentives across housing policy than it did in the past.

The SNP's principal argument seems to be that not enough money is being spent in the social rented sector, and that the only way to protect that sector is by sustaining the absence of the right to buy within the housing association movement, because only there are houses being built. Does that mean that, if there is a commitment from the Executive—which I believe there is—to supplying good, affordable social rented housing, that the SNP would change its position? If the issue is one of supply, that is to be addressed by the Executive; it does not necessarily have to be dealt with through the question of right to buy itself. The bill's and the Parliament's role is to ensure that we assert the importance of the social rented sector and have a commitment to it. We should not simply try to protect one wee bit of it in the way that has been suggested.

There is an irony in the SNP's position. We know that the SNP opposes wholesale stock transfer in Glasgow, and that it argues that there should be an improvement in the housing stock there within the local authority sector. The irony is that if that position were sustained, the houses in question would still be vulnerable to right to buy, because the SNP is not opposing the right to buy in the local authority sector.

The central question about maintaining and sustaining the social rented sector is one of making it credible for people to rent their houses as well as to buy them; of ensuring that their houses are affordable; of ensuring that their houses are in safe and mixed communities; and of ensuring that their families can move and buy their houses and live in the same communities as them. That is a far bigger picture than the small question that involves, quite rightly, putting an end to what is frankly a class-prejudiced policy that was promoted by the Tories in the past.

I believe that, given what has been proposed through the constructive dialogue between the Executive and the Social Justice Committee, we now have an option that gives credibility to the social rented sector and that recognises that some people wish to buy their own homes and stay in the communities where they were brought up. [Applause.]

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat

Unlike John McAllion, Brian Adam and Tommy Sheridan, I do not have any ideological hang-up about extending the right to buy and encouraging people to take that opportunity. Many people who have paid rent for many years have aspirations to purchase their properties, and that should be encouraged, with one exception.

I am on my feet today to pay tribute to the ministers who have worked on the bill and who have listened to people such as me, who represent rural areas. I was concerned about the original proposals, and about the lack of social rented housing that might be available to people in royal Deeside, in my constituency, for example. The idea of pressured areas is important, and I thank the ministers for listening and acting upon our concerns. I want to record that in today's debate.

Photo of Linda Fabiani Linda Fabiani Scottish National Party

I wish to refer to some of the contradictions of this debate, which is about the extension of the right to buy. The first contradiction is this: in a short while, we will hear about all the wonderful amelioration provisions that are being inserted about the existing right to buy, including pressured area status and fewer discounts. That is fine, and I can go along with that.

The justifications that I am hearing from various people in the chamber who argue that right to buy is suddenly fine because of those provisions are amazing. Surely the bottom line is that if there was real concern about preserving rented housing, not only would we have the amelioration provisions, but we would not have the extension of the right to buy to housing associations. It makes perfect sense to me.

The second contradiction is about balanced communities. They are mentioned in the bill and we have been hearing about them for two years. I ask the Executive to tell me what kind of balanced communities we will have in the west end of Glasgow, in the city centre of Edinburgh and in the rural areas that Maureen Macmillan mentioned. In 10, 15 or 20 years, we will back in the holiday homes scenario in rural areas and we will have no social rented housing in the west end of Glasgow or in the centre of Edinburgh.

Photo of Linda Fabiani Linda Fabiani Scottish National Party

Some balanced communities those will be.

Many members mentioned the opportunity that has been given to people to own their own home. That is fine. I do not have a problem with that.

Photo of Linda Fabiani Linda Fabiani Scottish National Party

No, I do not. However, if we want people to own their own homes, we should be imaginative and preserve the social rented stock that is in place. Why do not we consider giving subsidies to first-time buyers? We could let them leave the social rented sector to buy a home. Why do not we consider further low-cost home ownership and shared ownership?

Yet again, the bill gives housing associations a kicking and the Executive is giving another kicking to the voluntary members who work their butts off and give up their time, week after week, because they care about their communities and about balanced communities. They do not want to become glorified estate agents, which is what the Executive will turn some housing associations in some areas of Scotland into. We owe the voluntary members, the tenants, those who are on the waiting lists and the homeless more than that.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

As Fiona Hyslop indicated, the clear purpose of amendments 9 and 13 is the exclusion of RSL tenants from the right to buy, with some minimal protection for those RSL tenants who already have that right. Certainly that is what the purpose seems to be on the face of it, but I am not entirely clear about the SNP's position.

At a time when we are endeavouring to introduce more consistency and fairness into Scottish tenancy arrangements, amendments 9 and 13 would have the opposite effect. Rather than all social rented tenants enjoying similar rights in time, as we propose, those SNP amendments retain the discriminatory and inconsistent treatment that we aim to overcome.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

I might have taken an intervention from Linda Fabiani if she had taken interventions.

With the introduction of the Scottish secure tenancy, we hope to provide all social rented tenants in the country with a consistent set of rights and obligations. Amendments 9 and 13 would retain the existing distinctions between council and housing association tenants and would exclude many people from the opportunities that their friends and neighbours enjoy. As is consistent with the SNP, its amendments are backward looking, not forward looking. We made significant changes to the right to buy in the bill to ensure that, in future, it will be fair to all parties, but the SNP completely fails to recognise those changes.

Our changes include the introduction of quite different terms and conditions for all new tenancies, with reduced discounts and a longer initial qualifying period. Our proposal for a five-year qualifying period has been widely accepted as fair. The 10-year period that was to be proposed by Sandra White would be resented by tenants, as it is five times longer than the present position. That is probably a more likely indication of what the SNP really thinks about the right to buy.

We have also introduced provisions to allow for the designation of pressured areas, where the right to buy can be suspended if there is a shortage of social rented housing that is being exacerbated by the right to buy. We have introduced protection for RSLs through a 10-year exemption, which can be extended if necessary, to the extension of the right to buy. We have introduced other exemptions where justified—for group housing for persons with special needs, for example.

I remind Fiona Hyslop that there is a commitment in the programme for government to build 20,000 new and improved houses throughout Scotland in the space of three years. I do not recollect any such proposal from the SNP. The Executive is providing resources to build new housing. Above all, we are interested in balancing rights between tenants, landlords and the interests of the wider community.

I remind John McAllion that the inheritance from the Tories of the right to buy has been radically changed by our modernisation package. We believe that that framework, together with the further detailed changes that were agreed during stage 2, represents the best available set of conditions and ensures fairness by balancing the interests of landlords. The new, modernised right to buy must also recognise the aspirations and hopes of all tenants.

These amendments expose the SNP's policy on right to buy for what it is—discriminatory, unfair and, I might add, confused. I was slightly disappointed that Sandra White did not open the debate. If she had done, I would have had the opportunity to get clarification of what she said in committee. She said that she was in favour of Tommy Sheridan's amendment, which opposed having the right to buy at all.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

Is it the SNP's position to deny tenants across Scotland the right to buy? It is about time that people in the SNP came clean. What we have heard is the end result of failing to accept that the right to buy should be part and parcel of the Scottish secure tenancy.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

Providing protection for RSLs when needed is one thing; refusing to give RSL tenants the right to buy in principle is quite another.

Fiona Hyslop asked where we were. Let me ask this: where were the SNP members when we, on this side of the chamber, were protecting the rights of homeless people? Where were the SNP members when we were promoting the interests of tenants and communities in a balanced way? Let me tell members: they were nowhere, looking backwards.

Photo of Fiona Hyslop Fiona Hyslop Scottish National Party

It has been an interesting and enlightening debate. I would comment particularly on the Conservatives applauding Johann Lamont's contribution.

Photo of Fiona Hyslop Fiona Hyslop Scottish National Party

No, I want to move on.

Where are the political parties when it comes to defending social rented housing? The SNP is four-square behind defending social rented housing. That has been the purpose of the amendments in this group.

The Executive has talked about the strategy for achieving the aim of having 80 per cent home ownership, with the other 20 per cent in social rented housing. Will that be sustainable or adequate? We live in a world in which people's lifestyles have changed. Young families are being forced on to the mortgage ladder because no social rented housing is available under this Government. We have heard promises of 20,000 houses being built over three years. However, they are housing association houses that, five years later—that is, in eight years' time—will be sold off. That will be the result of the Executive's actions today unless Parliament agrees to amendments 9 and 13.

The Executive talks about a duty towards tenants. Let us have a duty towards homeless families; let us have a duty towards those who cannot currently access housing; and let us have a duty towards future generations who will want to access housing.

The Executive talks about balancing rights. That is what this debate is about. Is balancing rights across tenancies more important than defending social rented housing? I am on the side of defending social rented housing; the Executive is on the side of balancing rights. How can we have equality of rights when we already have eight different types of right to buy? When the minister talks about driving towards equality of rights, does that mean that she will take away exemptions on right to buy for charitable housing? How can people have equality of rights if they are poor? If people are poor, they cannot afford to buy a house. If people are poor, we have a responsibility to ensure that social rented housing is there for them. The bill, as it stands, will not allow that. The amendments in this group will.

Amendment 9 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour

The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 24

For: Adam, Brian, Campbell, Colin, Crawford, Bruce JP, Cunningham, Roseanna, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McAllion, Mr John, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, Morgan, Alasdair, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Smith, Elaine, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Ullrich, Kay, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Harding, Mr Keith, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLetchie, David, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Mundell, David, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Sheridan, Tommy, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Ben, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Harper, Robin

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour

The result of the division is: For 35, Against 84, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 9 disagreed to.