Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 3:30 pm on 21 June 2000.
That brings us to an end of the first part of the timetabling motion. I note from the clock that we have done extremely well. To respond to Mr Morgan's earlier point of order, that means that we have time in hand.
The next part of the debate, which was scheduled to last for an hour, can in theory go on until 17:50. If it does not do so, we will have longer for the debates at the end.
We now come to group 13. The group is the large one, from amendment 23 to amendment 74 and including amendment 22.
In discussion at stage 2, it was clear to me, as the minister, and to the Executive that there was a strong feeling that more public bodies should be included within the remit of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill than had been envisaged during the stage 1 process. We wanted to respond to that today. I will take time to go through these points—after the Presiding Officer's reassuring words to Alasdair Morgan, I will deliver a lengthy speaking note on the amendments. I apologise to Alasdair in advance.
The bill initially covered what we termed devolved public bodies, to which appointments of members were made by ministers or by Her Majesty. These amendments introduce a new and additional regime, which allow us, as appropriate, to bring the widest possible range of public bodies within the coverage of the bill.
The new regime will allow us to set out the standards that we expect members of public bodies to follow. It will also avoid the problems of intrusion, delay and centralisation that could occur if we left community and advisory bodies in schedule 3. We are committed, as an Executive, to widening involvement in public service. We do not want to introduce mechanisms that might act as a barrier to those bodies. While the full weight of the commission and the chief investigating officer is appropriate for bodies initially included under schedule 3, the additional regime will be appropriate for many community-oriented and advisory bodies. That distinction is necessary. It would be inappropriate to apply the full regime to members of a local trust set up, for example, to provide a children's playground. We propose the creation of a power for ministers to specify by order bodies in addition to those listed in schedule 3 and to set out a code or codes of conduct to apply to those bodies. Members of those bodies would be placed under a duty to have regard to the relevant code or codes.
It is important that we take adequate time to consider which bodies should be covered by the extended regime and to consult those bodies and others. That is why we do not propose to specify those bodies in the bill, but to return to Parliament with an order that specifies relevant bodies once we have conducted a review and consulted on the bodies that might be covered. I assure Parliament that our review will cover advisory bodies and the other bodies that the committee considered at stage 2. It will be able to recommend that bodies be added to schedule 3 or be made subject to the new additional regime.
Most of the remaining amendments in the group are concerned with removing bodies from schedule 3. As I explained, that is to allow us to consider and consult on how best to put in place
The amendments also remove from the schedule several bodies that are constituted as companies. Now that we have had the chance to consider the stage 2 amendments in detail, we believe that it is not within our legislative competence to extend the bill's regime to companies. That is because of the terms of section C1 in part II of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. That section reserves to Westminster the operation and regulation of types of business association. We are in no doubt that the nature of the bill's regime, most notably in the way in which it provides for the possible removal from office of a member of a relevant body and subsequent disqualification, takes us squarely into what I would describe as a reserved area.
The minister has just referred to the introduction of orders to include further bodies under schedule 3 and disqualification under the Scotland Act 1998. What is the Government saying to Parliament about the position of local enterprise companies? Is the minister saying that, because of the Scotland Act 1998, there is no question that local enterprise companies might come under the provisions of schedule 3, or will that issue be further considered when the orders are introduced?
The best things come to those who wait; my next paragraph will specifically address that concern.
I recognise the concerns of many members who would like to see public bodies that are limited companies brought within the framework created by the bill—for example, local enterprise companies and companies set up by local authorities. I have already said that we will review the full range of public bodies before returning with further proposals. I can confirm that our review will cover public bodies constituted as companies.
We considered local enterprise companies in detail at stage 2. In that respect, we recognise that members are reviewing the enterprise network—a matter in which John Swinney is centrally involved. We are aware of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's view that LECs should become fully public bodies rather than be constituted as companies. If that approach is followed, it will be possible to include such bodies in the schedule 3 regime. However, we must await the outcome of the review before bringing forward detailed proposals on LECs. Having discussed the matter with my colleagues, I am not unsympathetic to the concerns that Mr Swinney has raised. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to await the outcome of the review in order to process that
Our review will also examine ways in which public bodies that remain constituted as companies could, for example, adopt a binding code of conduct consistent with the reservation of company law. One possibility that we are examining—although we have not yet reached a conclusion—is whether the articles of association of such bodies could be amended to require their members to observe a code similar to that set out in the bill. Our review will consider that possibility in more detail.
Amendments 26 and 34 honour the commitment I gave to include area tourist boards and further education colleges under schedule 3. That is a substantial advance from the initial position in the bill. Some minor amendments to the wording have been used to achieve that.
Taken together, the amendments form a substantial package, which adds to the bill's initial provisions and shows that the Executive has listened to the arguments that were so powerfully and eloquently put by the committee at stage 1 and stage 2.
I move amendment 23.
I take on board what the minister has said. He has moved some distance, but I have some further comments on the whole group. It is fair to say that the Local Government Committee was fairly unanimous in its intention to include every devolved body, wherever possible. We wanted a system that would be well understood. We believe that we need a catch-all, rather than catch-some, approach if we are to improve the system. The standards should be uniform and should apply to all.
If we agree to the amendments, we will end up with a mixed bag of measures. If we want to encourage transparency, we should look to the old saying, "Make it simple, stupid." The Local Government Committee is of the opinion that no one should escape the net. Unfortunately, if the Parliament agrees to the amendments, there will be a number of different measures and many bodies will escape the net.
I want to follow up on the issue that I raised with the minister in my intervention. I understand the points that he makes and the legitimate difficulties to which he refers. However, Gil Paterson made the important point that, if we are creating a regime that is to apply across as many public authorities and bodies as possible, that regime should apply across the full range of organisations. There are practical difficulties that must be wrestled with, and it is necessary to ensure that some of the organisations and bodies that provide public services do so in the right
I welcome what the minister said in his response to my intervention, but I hope that he will work in the spirit of the comments that he has made today to Parliament and ensure that as many organisations as possible are captured by the regime that is set out in the bill.
I am concerned that, if bodies can be added to schedule 3 by order, they can also be removed from it by order—if it is easy for them to go in, it must also be easy for them to come out. It is important that the minister responds in the spirit of this legislation and ensures that the Parliament receives a guarantee that the Government is moving to create an open, transparent and accountable climate in our public authorities. We must not allow any organisations to escape the rigour that many of us believe is long overdue.
The general principle to which the Local Government Committee aspired was that all public bodies should, as far as possible, be covered by the code of conduct. The only disagreement in the committee concerned the way in which the names of many bodies were produced almost as a list, without their having been properly consulted. As the minister has pointed out, there are difficulties in applying the code to some of those bodies because of the legislation that governs them in other areas.
The Parliament should welcome the fact that, at every stage of the bill, the number of the bodies to which it applies has been increased. As the minister indicated, he has now added area tourist boards and the boards of further education colleges to the list of bodies that come under the bill. He has also given a strong commitment to examine ways of including as many other bodies as possible. The Parliament should recognise that the bill now covers the vast majority of public bodies in Scotland and their expenditure. We should unite behind that position and accept the minister's word that he will examine every possible way of enhancing the scope of the bill in future.
At this stage of the debate, it is difficult to say anything original on this issue. However, it is important to reiterate the fact that, throughout our discussions, members of the Local Government Committee were enthusiastic about making the bill as all-embracing as possible. The minister appears to have caught the spirit of that, even though he is not intending to go about it in the way that we planned at stage 2.
It is important that the bill applies to everyone. Some members may recall that the Local Government Committee wanted it to apply to
I draw members' attention to the matter of LECs, with which there is some legislative difficulty. By nine votes to one, the Local Government Committee favoured including the LECs. I appreciate that the existence of an ethical standards act, and its conditions, may deter some people on the fringes of public life, but that should not prevent us from including as many people as possible. It should be a sine qua non of public life that everybody aspires to the highest possible standards.
The Conservatives support, with some reluctance, the Executive amendments to exclude LECs, public companies and arm's-length council companies. We would not wish to take the bill beyond the Parliament's power to legislate. We also accept the reasoning behind removing school boards from the scope of the bill.
When I lodged similar amendments at stage 2, they were supported. I lodged those amendments in good faith. I believe that we should investigate procedures to determine whether amendments are legally competent before acceptance. We have received conflicting advice on that issue. However, in view of the minister's assurance that he will review the matter, we shall support the Executive's position. That is rather difficult, as we support some of the amendments and not others.
As regards other bodies, I want the widest possible range of public bodies to be drawn within the scope of the bill's provisions. The minister's argument about non-consultation is not sufficient, in my opinion. He appears to have included tourist boards and colleges of further education—again, at my instigation—without consultation. We shall therefore vote against the amendments that affect the other bodies. Do you want me to list the amendments that we support and those that we do not support, Presiding Officer? It would take rather a long time.
You do not have to do that. We shall come to that later.
I would like to add to what Bristow Muldoon said,
Although the committee was clear that as many bodies as possible should be listed, including LECs, we appreciate that a review will take place to consider LECs as a separate issue. As Donald Gorrie said, we also wanted the bill to cover MSPs, but we realise that we have a Standards Committee, which will consider the standards for MSPs in the light of the standards that will apply to councillors if the bill is passed today. Although I accept that there are some areas of dispute, we must be clear that some of the bodies on the list are really not acceptable.
I beg your indulgence, Presiding Officer, because I hope to speak at some length on this issue, which is the real meat of the bill, as it covers the bodies that can be incorporated.
You have four minutes.
I shall try my best. May I point out to Trish Godman that Scottish Homes, with 700 staff and a budget of £363 million, will, under the Executive's proposals, be excluded from the bill's scope? However, the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board, with one member of staff, will be included, so I do not think that the amount of money available is necessarily a criterion. I should also point out to Keith Harding that amendments that are not competent would not be accepted at stage 2 of a bill.
"The Executive and this Parliament expect the highest standards throughout the public service."—[Official Report, 2 July 1999; Vol 1, c 879.]
So said Wendy Alexander on 2 July 1999, when she announced the extension of the ethics bill to include public bodies.
"However, the Committee remains unconvinced that the argument against including the maximum possible number of public bodies in the legislation stands up to scrutiny . . . all devolved public bodies, including Local Enterprise Companies, operating in Scotland and spending public money, should be included within the provisions of the legislation."
So says the Local Government Committee's stage 1 report.
The central argument about which bodies should and should not be included in the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill is covered by those two quotations. The Local
"The minister did not say part of the public service but 'throughout the public service'."—[Official Report, 27 April 2000; Vol 6, c 91.]
Will Mr Gibson give way?
I cannot give way. I have been given only four minutes. I am sorry, but I cannot accept interventions. I have written a 15-minute speech, would you believe? [MEMBERS: "We believe it."] My concerns about the bill are shared by my party and by my colleagues on the Local Government Committee.
I went on to say:
"That issue must be addressed. We cannot have a two-tier system in which some public bodies are included and others are not. This chamber legislates in this area and it should be able to legislate for all who live in this country and hold public office."—[Official Report, 27 April 2000; Vol 6, c 94.]
Our position is that all bodies that were added to the bill at stage 2 should be retained; the position of the Executive is that they should all be removed, with the exception of area tourist boards and the boards of further education colleges. Our view is that a quango is a quango is a quango.
It should be noted that all but three of the 49 devolved public bodies that were added by the Local Government Committee at stage 2 were approved unanimously. Donald Gorrie said to the committee on 23 May that
"the list seems to be a good attempt to cover what are, in common parlance, quangos. The bodies spend public money or advise on the spending of public money. They have an impact on people's lives in the same way that a councillor does and the argument is that they should be treated in the same way."—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 23 May 2000; c 957.]
In his stage 1 speech on 27 April, Michael McMahon said:
"I join the committee in expressing reservations that a number of advisory bodies, such as local enterprise companies, further education colleges, housing associations and tourist boards, will be excluded from the proposals. As we know, individuals in those organisations are responsible for the management of considerable public funds and, like councillors, make policy decisions. The public must have confidence in the integrity of those officials."
Bristow Muldoon added that
"we should ensure that the bill covers arm's-length companies, such as leisure companies, and industrial and provident societies established by local authorities either to spend public moneys or to manage public assets."—[Official Report, 27 April 2000; Vol 6, c 113 and 121.]
I hope that I can count on those colleagues to vote
I will miss out a few pages of my speech. In paragraph 10 of page 3 of the policy memorandum that accompanied this bill, the Executive said:
"The Executive does not believe that a statutory system would be seen as a deterrent by anyone genuinely committed to public service values."
Touché. If a statutory code would not be a deterrent to members of Executive non-departmental public bodies, why should it be a deterrent to those who serve on advisory non-departmental public bodies?
The only other pertinent argument is that an extension of the powers of the bill to include advisory committees would be disproportionate to any value that their inclusion would bring. That runs contrary to the spirit of the legislation. If all public life is to come under one scheme, the issue of whether the value of including any particular body is proportionate should not come into it. The ethics bill is about restoring public confidence in public bodies. That means all public bodies, and any argument about proportionate value should be set aside.
A number of Executive NDPBs have been excluded. According to the Executive, their regulation is a reserved matter under section C1 on business associations in part II of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, and is therefore outwith the competence of the bill. Section C1 lists as reserved matters the
"creation, operation, regulation and dissolution of types of business association".
The Executive argues that that means that the NDPBs are excluded from the bill. However, the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, Brian Jamieson, in evidence to the Local Government Committee on 9 May, did not seem to agree. In a specific reference to LECs, he said:
"That is why I said that the Scottish Enterprise board, which has discussed the matter, is entirely open to the suggestion that—so far as is practicable—we should impose all the provisions of the statutory code on the local enterprise companies. However, we would like to do that in the way in which we have proposed, instead of going down the statutory route."
The deputy convener then asked:
"Are you saying that this cannot be done, or that it ought not to be done?"
Brian Jamieson replied:
"I am not aware of anything that would make what you suggest a constitutional impossibility."—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 9 May 2000; c 904-05]
Mr Jamieson, while not wanting LECs to be included in the bill, is not hiding behind company law and reserved powers. I spoke to him yesterday and he confirmed that LECs could be included provided that their model code reflected that they were bound by company law. That view is supported in paragraph 24 on page 6 of the Executive's own policy memorandum, which states:
"Similar codes of conduct will be introduced for members of relevant public bodies . . . Because these bodies do not form a homogeneous group it will be necessary for each body's code to reflect the type of work that it does, its composition, and the responsibilities and duties of its members. Accordingly the Bill provides for a statutory model code of conduct for members of relevant bodies; and for each of the relevant bodies to adopt a version of that code which is suited to its circumstances."
It is clear from the policy memorandum that public bodies that are limited companies would be able to adapt their codes to reflect that reality. There is no question of changing company law, so the issue of company law being a reserved matter is a red herring.
The Executive has also objected to the inclusion of a number of bodies such as tribunal NDPBs and university courts. We have yet to hear a clear argument from the Executive as to why those bodies have been excluded. Housing associations are also to be excluded; again, no clear reason has been given. Housing associations argue that, like universities, they are not public bodies. We do not accept that argument. They also argue that they are regulated by statute through Scottish Homes. However, that could be incorporated into their model codes.
We are unclear on the Executive line on this, but nationalised industries either operate in the same company law climate as limited companies, or act as public corporations, in the same way as the water companies that are included in the bill. Either way, they should be included, especially given the fiasco over Caledonian MacBrayne.
The last line of attack from the Executive is that there has been no time for consultation with the bodies that it is proposed are added to the bill. That argument could be applied to the late inclusions—area tourist boards and college boards—yet there has been the same time for them to be consulted as there has been for everyone else. That was flagged up in the committee some five months ago. The Scottish National Party feels that it should oppose the Executive's attempt to withdraw all the public bodies introduced at stage 2.
I allowed extra time because others have taken less than four minutes.
As I am a member of the Local Government
This is a contentious issue, but one area, although the committee debated it seriously, was seen less as a matter of contention than as a matter of wrestling with what we all identified as a problem. At that stage, the discussion focused especially on the role of LECs. We were anxious that the activities of bodies that have access to significant public moneys and that have an important role at a local level should be transparent and accountable.
Kenny Gibson says that the problem is that company law will not change. My understanding, however, is that the Parliament will consider LECs and their role. It is possible that the role of the LECs will change—I hope that that is possible. The committee as a whole was clear that the LECs and their role as public bodies were an issue, but other committees in the Parliament are addressing that. I hope that we can return to this subject at a later stage. We should have defined the bodies that we were dealing with; bodies would then fall within or outwith that definition. However, we started with a list and, through the committee procedure, realised that some bodies did not appear to be on it.
There is no easy way to solve that. We can take either Gil Paterson's catch-all position or the Executive's position, which is to deal with the narrower group now and to consult on the broader group. However, the intent remains the same. We should maximise the bill's coverage of bodies that can deal with public moneys, are publicly accountable and relate to the same ethical standard. That should apply to MSPs as well.
All sorts of bodies—small, localised bodies, children's panels and so on—have expressed anxieties about this matter. The best way for us to hold the position on a national standard is for people to commit to it through discussion and consultation. I therefore support the Executive's position, which is to consult those bodies further. My anxiety is that, if we do not consult, people will not sign up to the code of conduct.
We want a commitment from the Executive that this is not the final word on the matter. Kenny Gibson wants to characterise the proposals as the Executive excluding people from public accountability; he wants the code to be all-embracing. However, it is clear that other bodies can be included at a later stage. It would be unacceptable if this issue were not addressed in the near future. By shifting on this, the Executive has acknowledged the political issues that have been identified, has made a commitment to moving forward with the bodies that are included on the list and has taken off the list travelling people's organisations and so on, which should not be included in the scope of the bill.
The Executive, and especially Frank McAveety, deserves credit for some of the welcome concessions that have been made. Mr McAveety's amendment 22, to set up a new structure to bring more organisations within the ambit of the bill, is to be welcomed.
However, I have serious problems about the issue of excluding various quangos from the list. If Mr McAveety honours his commitment—as I am sure he will—to bring all such issues to the forefront as soon as possible, most of my colleagues will accept that; however, I am not at all happy with his argument.
It is not a personal issue, but the way in which we deal with bills needs serious examination. For example, when amendments are lodged at the last minute, nobody is able thoroughly to examine them, whether they are Executive or other amendments, and to discuss rationally whether it is sensible for a certain group to be included in the list.
The committee set out its stall quite early on this issue. However, the Executive did not really give ground and the committee, in a majority vote, went its dinger on the whole matter and included many organisations on the list, some of which should perhaps not have been included. That is not really a rational way of dealing with amendments, and we should improve the procedure.
I suggest that, with all due respect, Frank McAveety and his colleagues have received bad advice on this particular issue. As Kenny Gibson pointed out, we are told that the Scotland Act 1998 prevents us dealing with the matter, but the Scotland Act 1998 mentions only companies and business associations. We are talking about regulating the individual behaviour of individuals as directors of companies that dispose of public money. It seems only proper to allow that.
I am encouraged in this view by a briefing note that came from the Executive, or from the Scottish Parliament information centre or some other neutral source. The briefing note says that LECs
"discharge functions . . . through the provisions of an operating contract, renewed annually . . . The Operating Contract requires compliance with a range of measures that the parent organisation itself abides to by statute or by management control through the Scottish Executive . . . LEC Board Members already have to comply with either a Code of Corporate Governance . . . or . . . a policy of Accountability . . . both of which contain many of the features of the proposed code of conduct".
Those statements have been advanced as arguments for not needing the code of conduct. However, the fact that regulations similar to the code of conduct have already been imposed on these people totally demolishes the argument that
Furthermore, if committees carefully study pieces of legislation and reach certain conclusions only to have the Executive not accept those conclusions and push the legislation through on a whipped vote, that raises a serious issue about why we are here at all. Why bother? As I said, the Executive did listen to the committee on other issues, which is very welcome; however, on the basis of duff advice, ministers are pushing through things that they should not be pushing through.
There are serious anomalies in the Executive's proposed list—the Scottish Arts Council, for example.
I just want to clarify a point about the committee's role in this matter. Other committee members and I voted against the committee's final position on about the first 10 amendments, after which it became clear that we would not have a majority on the committee.
Only the first two amendments.
The votes were quite clear and the rest of the amendments went through on the nod. Mr Gorrie and I know that there is no way that those amendments would come to the chamber and be whipped through against our conscience. We made the political case in the committee, and were defeated.
Mr Gorrie, could you respond and wind up, please.
I entirely accept that Johann Lamont and others voted in a particular way. However, I feel that we must address the serious issue of the interaction between committees and the Executive.
I will limit myself to one example of the anomalies in this list. The Scottish Arts Council is on the list as an organisation to be regulated; Scottish Screen, which is a very similar organisation that deals with films, is not. That is one example of the foolishness of the Executive's list. The committee's list should be accepted in place of the Executive's and we can sort the matter out later. I am very unhappy about how this aspect of the bill has been dealt with.
Following on from Johann Lamont's comments, I want to focus on the critical issue, which is that we did not have a definition of devolved public bodies when the committee discussed which bodies should be included on the list. The issue hinges on which public bodies are appropriate.
To add to the examples mentioned by Johann Lamont, some of the recreational trusts that
There is also confusion around the position of school boards—that matter was raised earlier. School boards are advisory and do not have the executive budgetary powers that some people may think they have. Including bodies such as school boards in the provisions of the bill would result in fewer people coming forward to sit on school boards. In some areas of Scotland, it is growing increasingly difficult to encourage people to come forward.
I am confident that no one on this side of the chamber wants LECs excluded from the provisions of the bill. However, having said that, we should take on board the Executive's point. I do not often disagree with what Donald Gorrie says on the Local Government Committee, but from his comments today, I almost detected a shade of "Because you are not quite agreeing me, I will not agree with the Executive." We must take on board the Executive's comments. It will not be too long before LECs are included in the bill's provisions, particularly given the work of John Swinney and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. I hope that they will arrive at the necessary conclusions.
I am sorry, but I did not press my button, Presiding Officer.
In that case, I ask Frank McAveety to respond to the debate on this group of amendments.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank members for their contributions to the debate. I am minded to reflect that Donald Gorrie's epitaph will be: "Here lies Donald Gorrie—but." [Interruption.] I am being heckled by the Donald Gorrie fan club. [Laughter.]
John Swinney raised the issue of trust, but he should judge us by how far we have moved from where we were prior to the elections to the Scottish Parliament. At that time, we had a commitment, if elected to government, to introduce a bill on ethical standards in local government. Wendy Alexander and I recognised that that commitment should be widened to include other public bodies. Therefore, the principle that underpins our response is one of trying to meet the spirit of the Parliament—of making organisations more transparent and accountable. However, our intentions also had to address the practical difficulties that exist when trying to legislate in this rather murky grey area. The bill that we have produced has been made much
We recognise that we are removing bodies from the scope of the bill largely because of practical arrangements, but it is also important to recognise that we are including a number of bodies that would not have been included in the original bill—we did that only after consultation and dialogue with members of all political parties.
I remind members that changes to schedule 3 will be by orders that must be debated by this Parliament, so accountability in relation to the bodies that are to be included—or excluded—from any parliamentary order will reside with Parliament rather than with ministers.
Our principal objective is to try, where possible, to identify what we would consider to be the big hitters in public spending and devolved public bodies. More than 90 per cent of those big hitters are covered in the present framework. In conjunction with the review that is being undertaken, we wish to consider the ways in which LECs might be brought within the ambit of the legislation, should their constitution be changed. We are keen to progress that issue as much as anyone in the Parliament.
As a point of clarification, I advise that Scottish Homes was included in the bill at stage 1. It was still in the bill at stage 2 and, for some remarkable reason, it is still clinging on for life at stage 3. It will remain there until any housing bill is fully approved by this Parliament, when it will no longer be a board. It will be accountable to this Parliament and that accountability will therefore be enshrined here. I hope that Kenny Gibson recognises that that is a much more effective measure; it is not as discordant as he suggested.
LECs are companies, and the regulation of companies is a reserved matter. I agree with Sylvia Jackson and with many other members that we wish to address that issue in the review process. It is not that we are disinclined for LECs to be part of the process, but that we cannot regulate companies. I remind Donald Gorrie that I wanted articles of association to be part of the process. Perhaps we can examine that matter over the following period of time.
I will conclude by referring to what Kenny Gibson said. The application of such a code is about appropriateness and about the measures that are undertaken. Many of the bodies that were included at stage 2 were advisory bodies—which are specifically that. Such bodies do not have access to a resource base, nor do they expend public money.
It was appropriate to consider how to take that into account differently, which is why we wished to omit some of the bodies at stage 2. In my opinion,
The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division, for which I will allow two minutes.
While members are voting, I can inform them how I propose to handle the rest of this group of amendments. There are 52 amendments after amendment 23. Clearly, if we take them individually, that will occupy valuable debating time. I will therefore put the questions on the amendments en bloc.
Before I do so, however, I will ask anyone who wants to vote on a particular amendment to indicate that by pressing their request-to-speak button. I will then take a note of which amendments are to be put separately. In the meantime, we will continue the vote on amendment 23.
Division number 4
For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, McLetchie, David, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Reid, Mr George, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
I now invite members who wish to vote on any particular amendments in this grouping to let me know.
Could we take the votes on amendments 26, 34 and 22 separately, Presiding Officer?
Amendment 22 will be taken separately anyway.
We wish to take the votes on the following amendments separately, Presiding Officer: 26, 28, 32, 34, 36, 38, 42, 45, 47, 48, 53, 55, 59, 63, 65, 69, 71 and 22.
In that case, we should perhaps take them individually, because it will be very difficult to make sense of any groupings. However, if members concentrate, I will try to group them as best I can.
Are amendments 24 and 25 agreed?
No? I thought that Kenny Gibson told me that amendment 26 was the first that he wanted taken individually, but it seems not. We will take them one by one.
Amendment 24 moved—[Mr McAveety].
The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 5
For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McGugan, Irene, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeod, Fiona, McLetchie, David, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Reid, Mr George, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
I invite the minister to move all the remaining amendments in the group en bloc to save him getting up each time. I will then put the questions individually.
Amendments 25 to 74 moved—[Mr McAveety].
In the interests of time and as everyone is here, I will reduce the voting time to 15 seconds.
The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 6
For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McGugan, Irene, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeod, Fiona, McLetchie, David, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Reid, Mr George, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
The result of the division is: For 65, Against 50, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 25 agreed to.
Amendment 26 agreed to.
The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 7
For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, McLetchie, David, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Reid, Mr George, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 8
For: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, 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, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLeish, Henry, McLetchie, David, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, 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, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Reid, Mr George, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 9
For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, McLetchie, David, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Reid, Mr George, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 10
For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Reid, Mr George, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
The question is, that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 11
For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Reid, Mr George, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 12
For: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, 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, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLeish, Henry, McLetchie, David, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, 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, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan, Young, John
Against: Adam, Brian, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce JP, Cunningham, Roseanna, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Reid, Mr George, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
The question is, that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 13
For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fergusson, Alex, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
The question is, that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
The question is, that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 14
For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Harding, Mr Keith, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McGugan, Irene, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeod, Fiona, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Young, John
The question is, that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 15
For: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Fergusson, Alex, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, 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, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLeish, Henry, 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, Robson, Euan, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan, Young, John
Against: Adam, Brian, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
The question is, that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 16
For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McGugan, Irene, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeod, Fiona, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
The question is, that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 17
For: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, 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, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeish, Henry, McLetchie, David, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Mundell, David, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan, Young, John
Against: Adam, Brian, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, Morgan, Alasdair, Munro, Mr John, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
The question is, that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 18
For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McGugan, Irene, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeod, Fiona, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Munro, Mr John, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
The question is, that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 19
For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, Mr John, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McGugan, Irene, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeod, Fiona, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
The question is, that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 20
For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, Mr John, Murray, Dr Elaine, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McGugan, Irene, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeod, Fiona, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
The question is, that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 21
For: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Harding, Mr Keith, Home Robertson, Mr John, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeish, Henry, 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, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan, Young, John
Against: Adam, Brian, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
The question is, that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 22
For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, Mr John, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McGugan, Irene, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeod, Fiona, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
The question is, that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 23
For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, Mr John, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McGugan, Irene, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeod, Fiona, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
The question is, that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 24
For: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, 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, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeish, Henry, 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, Munro, Mr John, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan, Young, John
Against: Adam, Brian, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
The question is,
There will be a division.
Division number 25
For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McGugan, Irene, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeod, Fiona, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
The question is, that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 26
For: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, 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, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeish, Henry, 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, Munro, Mr John, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan, Young, John
Against: Adam, Brian, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
Would it be in order to move that the rest of the amendments be taken en bloc?
That would be helpful to the chamber.
We agreed previously that amendment 22 would be taken separately. Apart from that, I would be happy for the rest to be taken en bloc.
Amendment 22 is not in this section, so it would not be voted on now in any case.
Is there any opposition to the suggestion that we take amendments 48 to 74, inclusive, en bloc? [MEMBERS: "No."] That will save the chamber substantial time and allow business to progress.
The question is, that amendments 48 to 74 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Division number 27
For: Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, Mr John, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, McLetchie, David, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
Abstentions: Aitken, Bill, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fergusson, Alex, Gallie, Phil, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Harding, Mr Keith, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, Monteith, Mr Brian, Scott, John, Tosh, Mr Murray
The result of the division is: For 66, Against 36, Abstentions 13.
Amendments 48 to 74 agreed to.