Business Motion

– in the Scottish Parliament at 2:30 pm on 6th September 2000.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament 2:30 pm, 6th September 2000

Before we come to our first item of business, I take this opportunity, on behalf of the whole Parliament, to welcome back in good health our First Minister. [Applause.]

The first item of business today is consideration of business motion S1M-1147, in the name of Tom McCabe, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out the business programme, and of two amendments to that motion.

Photo of Tom McCabe Tom McCabe Labour 2:36 pm, 6th September 2000

The business motion before Parliament today reflects decisions taken in the all-party Parliamentary Bureau. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that details of the discussions and the decisions taken in the bureau found their way into the media before the motion could be lodged. The Executive hears a lot from Opposition parties about the Executive giving Parliament its proper place. It seems that members of the Conservative party and the Scottish National Party conveniently forget that they also have obligations to this chamber.

Photo of Tommy Sheridan Tommy Sheridan SSP

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I ask you to remind Mr McCabe that the Parliamentary Bureau is not an all-party bureau.

Photo of Tom McCabe Tom McCabe Labour

You will know better than I do, Presiding Officer, that, according to the standing orders of the Parliament, it is indeed an all-party bureau. It is unfortunate that, after a year's experience, Mr Sheridan has still not learned that.

The motion is straightforward, but I take this opportunity to clarify the position regarding the ministerial statement. I shall not, at this point, attempt to address the two amendments that have been lodged, but I shall respond to them after they have been moved.

Prior to the summer recess, the bureau indicated that the first day's business on resuming would be stage 3 consideration of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill. We altered that decision at the request of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, to allow members more time to consider that committee's report. Today, the Executive proposes a further change to the business motion to include a statement on the independent inquiry into the severe situation that has emerged in the Scottish Qualifications Authority.

This is the earliest opportunity for the Minister for Children and Education to explain the facts to Parliament and to answer questions on what is undoubtedly a very serious situation. The initial Executive proposal for a 45-minute statement was based on experience to date of statements on extremely high-profile issues, such as section 2A, which took only 32 minutes. As far as I am aware, there has been only one occasion in the life of this Parliament on which a statement has lasted longer than 45 minutes. I have indicated to the Presiding Officer that, if he wishes to use his discretion to extend that time to call as many members as want to ask questions, neither the minister nor the Executive would have any objection.

Calls have been made for a debate at this time, but those calls are premature. Any debate should be informed by the facts that emerge from the independent inquiry into the SQA and the inquiry to be undertaken by this Parliament's Education, Culture and Sport Committee. At this juncture, the most appropriate way to proceed is for the minister to offer Parliament a statement outlining the facts as we currently know them and to respond to any questions that members may have.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees the following programme of business— Wednesday 6 September 2000

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Business Motion followed by Ministerial Statement on Independent Inquiry into Problems with Exam Results followed by Debate on the Creative Economy

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-952 Malcolm Chisholm: Dementia Awareness Week Thursday 7 September 2000

9.30 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 3 Debate on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Continuation of Stage 3 Debate on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-1111 Irene McGugan: Programme of Action for Scots and Gaelic in the European Year of Languages Wednesday 13 September 2000

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Ministerial Statement and Debate on the Scottish Executive's Programme followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-1124 Shona Robison: Fibromyalgia Syndrome Thursday 14 September 2000

9.30 am Ministerial Statement followed by Stage 1 Debate on the Transport (Scotland) Bill followed by Financial Resolution in respect of the Transport (Scotland) Bill followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Debate on the Framework for Economic Development in Scotland followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-1122 Maureen Macmillan: Screening for Prostate Cancer Wednesday 20 September 2000

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Ministerial Statement and Debate on Spending Strategy followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-959 Alex Johnstone: St. Vigeans Primary School, Arbroath Thursday 21 September 2000

9.30 am Executive Business followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee Debate on Housing Stock Transfer followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-958 Michael McMahon: Palliative Care

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond Leader, Scottish National Party 2:39 pm, 6th September 2000

My amendment would alter the business motion to provide for a full day's debate tomorrow on the crisis that is affecting the examination system in Scotland. The Minister for Parliament has just said that we should not have the debate until we have been informed by the parliamentary inquiry. I think that we should have the debate because we should be informed by the views of the parents, teachers and children throughout Scotland who are giving us information to which this Parliament should be responding.

The Minister for Parliament did not strike much of a note of consensus. I should remind him that, even though four parties—not all the parties—are on the Parliamentary Bureau, that does not mean that every decision of the bureau has all-party agreement. If we follow the extension of his line of argument and accept his definition of "all-party", we will discover that, as long as the Liberal Democrats support their partners on the Executive—and they invariably do—the Executive parties control every item that this Parliament can or cannot provide for.

Members of this Parliament are fond of saying that we should not follow Westminster practices. They are absolutely correct to do so. I have been at Westminster for 13 years and definitely think that we should not follow those practices. However, even at Westminster, where the Executive has too much control over the parliamentary chamber, the Speaker has the opportunity to place any subject of importance that reflects parliamentary concern before the Parliament, despite what the Government says. How can it be that, after just a year of operation, we find ourselves more restricted than even that restricted Parliament on the River Thames? The Presiding Officer of this Parliament should have such an ability to respond to public concern.

Each and every one of us with constituents who have been affected by this crisis should have it within our own ability and conscience to respond to public concern. On Saturday, I saw the parents of Katrina Ritchie, who is one of a number of students studying higher graphic design at Peterhead Academy. All of those students have been told that they have failed, because the SQA cannot add up the results properly. They have had the information that there was a mistake in the results since 14 August, but they have heard nothing else. Fortunately for Katrina, her university of choice—Robert Gordon University—is ignoring the results and admitting her and other students anyway. Fortunately for Katrina, her parent is a teacher and has been able to guide her through this process of anxiety. However, nothing that we ever do will remove the anxiety, hurt and disappointment that she felt when she phoned up the SQA helpline to be told that she had failed the subject of her choice and that her life chances were apparently ruined.

Although we cannot change such a moment, as a Parliament we can respond to public concern. A statement, even one lasting not less than 45 minutes, is not adequate. I see that the First Minister is becoming anxious—he should be anxious about the state of his Administration. A parliamentary inquiry is not a substitute for a parliamentary debate; it should not be a means of removing the issue from the parliamentary agenda. We are the Parliament of Scotland, not a parish council or a local authority. We have an obligation that goes beyond our parties, and such an obligation should see us voting for this amendment and having the debate that the parents, teachers and pupils of Scotland want the Parliament to have tomorrow.

I move amendment S1M-1147.2, under Thursday 7 September 2000, to delete:

"Stage 3 Debate on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill" and insert:

"Debate on the Scottish Qualifications Authority and the crisis of year 2000 Higher and Standard Grade results", and delete:

"Continuation of Stage 3 Debate on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill" and insert:

"Continuation of Debate on the Scottish Qualifications Authority and the crisis of year 2000 Higher and Standard Grade results".

Photo of David McLetchie David McLetchie Conservative 2:43 pm, 6th September 2000

Moving my amendment opposing today's business motion is not something that I do lightly. However, I firmly believe that if we do not debate the current problems in our education and examination system as a matter of urgency—indeed, as the first priority of this Parliament on its resumption of business—the Scottish Executive will be guilty of treating this Parliament, and by extension the Scottish people, with contempt.

Of course, if the Scottish National Party had supported our no confidence motion, the motion would now appear on the business bulletin, and Labour and Liberal Democrat members would have been put in the position of voting it down. Instead, they have been able to hide behind the sop of a question-and-answer session at a time when the Scottish public are demanding a full-scale debate in this chamber.

The SNP failure to support our motion is, frankly, disappointing. Nicola Sturgeon pretends that it is all a matter of tactics, to hide the fact that she was too busy running John Swinney's campaign to have thought of it herself. So she takes the huff, refuses to support our motion and an opportunity is missed.

Photo of David McLetchie David McLetchie Conservative

No.

The Liberal Democrats' silence on this matter has been deafening. When everybody else was crying out for action from the Executive as the reputation of our education system was dragged through the mud, they kept their heads down. That is strange for a party that is always boasting of its commitment to education. Finally, on 31 August, Mr Jenkins, the Liberal Democrat member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, and a former teacher of considerable experience, said that young people should be awarded results on the basis of their estimated grades. That, of course, is in flat contradiction to what the minister, Mr Galbraith, has said, which is that the normal assessment and appeals procedures should apply.

If Mr Jenkins has no confidence in Mr Galbraith's solution, why does he not support our motion of no confidence in the minister? The answer is that his party is reverting to its usual position of docile subservience to Labour and, instead of backing our call in the Parliamentary Bureau for a full debate on the issue, Mr Smith loyally whelps at Mr McCabe's command.

Photo of David McLetchie David McLetchie Conservative

No.

The failure to stage an urgent debate on the exam fiasco is appalling. Instead, we have a debate on the creative economy. That is yet another example of the arrogance of the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive. Sadly, it is exactly the failure to address properly the issues that are of real concern to the Scottish people that has led to massive public disillusionment with the Parliament and has enhanced its reputation for irrelevance.

Frankly, it is no surprise that people hold that view. When we cannot mark exams properly, when people are waiting longer than ever for an operation and when the rural economy is in crisis, it seems to most people out there that all that we can offer is the repeal of section 28, a ban on fox-hunting and the contempt for parliamentary government that is displayed in the business motion.

Mr McCabe says that a motion of no confidence is premature at this stage. If it is premature to criticise Mr Galbraith, it must also be premature to praise him from the rooftops, as Mr Blair did when he wafted through Scotland last week and said that Mr Galbraith was outstanding. It is not the minister, but the correct exam results for the young people of Scotland that are outstanding.

On 16 June last year, the First Minister said:

"We want to make this Parliament what it can be—the democratic crucible in which we can test our ideas, seek new inspiration and stand to account on our record."—[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol 1, c 405.]

Those were fine words, well spoken and said with sincere conviction. It is a great pity that the Executive's business motion today makes a mockery of them.

The reputation of our education system lies in tatters and our exam system and assessment procedures are tainted. Sam's exams have been marked a failure by the people of Scotland. The minister is not the solution; he is part of the problem. It does not particularly matter to me whether we debate a Conservative motion of no confidence, an SNP motion, or a motion from the Executive endorsing the minister's actions to date, which it so cravenly and spinelessly refuses to lodge. The mechanism does not matter, but the people of Scotland demand and deserve a full-scale debate on this issue, and those who vote against such a debate should hang their heads in shame.

I move amendment S1M-1147.1, under Wednesday 6 September 2000, delete:

"Debate on the Creative Economy" and insert:

"Debate on the subject of S1M-1128 Brian Monteith: Motion of No Confidence: That the Parliament has no confidence in the Minister for Children and Education".

Photo of Tom McCabe Tom McCabe Labour 2:49 pm, 6th September 2000

It is unfortunate that Mr Salmond chose to denigrate the good work of elected representatives in local councils and community councils the length and breadth of Scotland in order to make his already weak case.

It seems strange that, if Mr Salmond considers this to be such an important issue, he should lodge an amendment to alter the business for the second rather than the first day of our proceedings. If one thinks about it a bit more, the explanation becomes obvious. His non-Executive coalition partners in the Conservative party have lodged another amendment and Mr Salmond is terrified to compete for their time.

Photo of Tom McCabe Tom McCabe Labour

No. Mr Salmond has wasted enough time.

What Mr Salmond proposes would delay the parliamentary passage of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill—a bill that safeguards and assists the police in their fight against crime. Mr Salmond is guilty not only of opportunism, but of dangerous opportunism.

I have already explained fully why we do not consider it appropriate to debate the exam issue at this time. The statement about to be made by my colleague, Sam Galbraith, will be the first step on the path towards a debate to be held after the two inquiries are complete and the Parliament is fully informed. That will be the proper time to debate the subject. Now is not the time to provide an opportunity for the leader of the SNP to make a valedictory speech.

Photo of Tom McCabe Tom McCabe Labour

No, I will not. Ms Sturgeon has wasted enough time.

I have listened to what Mr McLetchie has had to say and I am sure that the people of Scotland are well aware that he is hanging on the coat tails of the SNP. He mentions two subjects, one of which has not yet been discussed in the Scottish Parliament. I know that he has little relevance to the people of Scotland, but he should at least have paid attention to the work of the Parliament over its first year. He does not seem to have noticed that we have passed 11 bills into law.

Mr Salmond and Mr McLetchie have both taken the opportunity to get this off their chest. One can only hope that having done so, they will encourage their members to participate impartially in the parliamentary inquiry. That is important for our parliamentary democracy. It is certainly more important than the pre-emptive comments of Ms Sturgeon of the SNP. I quote directly from one of the many statements that she has made in the past two weeks:

"there will only be one possible outcome—Sam Galbraith's removal from office".

Perhaps it is Ms Sturgeon who should consider her position and her inability to take part in an impartial and objective inquiry.

Photo of Tom McCabe Tom McCabe Labour

No, I will not. [Interruption.]

Photo of Tom McCabe Tom McCabe Labour

There is a final and important point to be made in respect of both amendments. They have been lodged in the names of the party leaders, who seem to have lost confidence in the work of their business managers, overruling their work within the Parliamentary Bureau. In so doing, they have created an interesting precedent. If non-Executive parties can attempt to alter the proposed Executive business within Executive time, we will see how they react if the Executive parties attempt to alter the business proposed in non-Executive time.

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond Leader, Scottish National Party

On a point of order. Presiding Officer, you should listen very carefully to the remarks of a person who has the title of Minister for Parliament. He has directly threatened Opposition parties, by saying that if we lodge motions that he does not like, he will steal our non-Executive time. That remark can be termed many things, but it is certainly not parliamentary. That is Executive dictatorship and control of parliamentary time and should be ruled out of order.

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament

Nothing that was said was actually out of order. Please carry on, minister.

Photo of Tom McCabe Tom McCabe Labour

It is remarkable that Mr Salmond is not aware that what he accuses me of is exactly what he proposes in his amendment.

To conclude, when this Parliament is informed by the outcome of the two inquiries, the Executive will welcome and encourage a full debate on the issue. It will do so for the right reasons: a search for the facts about what went wrong and a search for solutions to prevent it from happening again. We will leave blatant opportunism to the Conservatives and the SNP.

I call on members to resist these risible and opportunistic amendments and to support the motion.

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament

I have notice of one member wishing to speak against the business motion.

Photo of John Swinney John Swinney Scottish National Party

It is clear that before Mr McCabe came to this Parliament there could not have been a lot of debating in South Lanarkshire Council, because debating normally involves engaging the arguments that people put forward. There was not much evidence of that in what he said.

Some decent things happened today before Mr McCabe started. Two parliamentary committees decided to undertake major inquiries into the fiasco that we are now dealing with. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee decided to look into the issue of school qualifications, and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee decided to look into the governance of the Scottish Qualifications Authority. Many people in Scotland will be reassured by those actions, but they will be surprised, on the first day that the Parliament comes back after the summer recess, that the type of excuses that we have had from Mr McCabe are the order of the day and that we do not have a full-scale parliamentary debate scheduled to discuss these issues.

Mr McCabe made an important point during his comments on the role of members on the committee inquiries. He urged members of my party and members of the Conservative party to be impartial and dispassionate with the evidence. I hope that the same will apply to Liberal Democrat and Labour committee members and in equal margin. I see that the First Minister is giving me his assurance that that will be the case. I look forward warmly to seeing that realised in the months to come.

Scheduled in front of us today is a debate on the creative economy. With the greatest respect to the contribution that Mr McLeish will be likely to make to that debate, it could wait. We could have had a debate on the issue before us. If Mr McCabe had agreed to it in the Parliamentary Bureau a few weeks ago, we could have had a statement followed by a debate. It is fairly common practice in Parliament to get some of the factual information from the minister and then to chew it over in a parliamentary debate. What was wrong with doing that this afternoon? What we have had is the Executive putting forward the minimum agenda possible to keep this issue under control upon Parliament's return. Our duty as an Opposition is to make sure that these issues are brought to the floor of the Parliament. The business motion today does not do that.

In the discussion that we have had so far about the Parliamentary Bureau, a number of interesting issues have begun to bubble to the surface. All the aspirations of the consultative steering group to have the agenda of Parliament reflect the consensus view of Parliament have been stamped on by the Executive using its natural majority in the bureau to stop legitimate requests for debate from the Opposition parties. If that is the way in which this Parliament will proceed, it will be a different Parliament from the one that the Executive parties promised when this Parliament was established.

When there is such enormous public concern about these issues, the fact that the coalition parties are prepared to suppress legitimate debate on this subject is a matter of enormous public concern. This issue should be out in the public domain, with ministers being tested in this Parliament on the issues that are at stake. The issues should not be put aside by ministers who are unwilling to face the music in Parliament and answer for the mistakes that they have made over the summer.

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament

Before I put the questions, I will return to Mr Salmond's point of order. Nothing that Mr McCabe said was itself out of order, but what he proposed might well be out of order if it were carried out, because rule 5.6.1(b), on the Parliamentary Bureau, says:

"In proposing the business programme, the Parliamentary Bureau shall ensure that . . . on 16 half sitting days in each Parliamentary year, meetings of the Parliament consider business chosen by political parties which are not represented in the Scottish Executive".

That is the position.

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond Leader, Scottish National Party

Further to my point of order, now that he knows the standing orders that protect Opposition parties, will the Minister for Parliament get the opportunity to withdraw the threat that he made five minutes ago?

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament

As I said, nothing that the Minister for Parliament said was out of order.

Photo of Tom McCabe Tom McCabe Labour

In reply to the question, under no circumstances will the Executive parties give up their right under standing orders to move amendments to non-Executive proposals for debate.

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament

I now have three questions to put to the chamber. The first question is, that amendment S1M-1147.2, in the name of Alex Salmond, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament

There will be a division.

The result of the division is: For 58, Against 64, Abstentions 2.

Photo of Keith Raffan Keith Raffan Liberal Democrat

On a point of order. My voting console is not working. Can I move to another console? I do not think that my vote was recorded. [Interruption.]

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond Leader, Scottish National Party

On a point of order. If there is some doubt about the Liberal consoles, and given the relative closeness of the vote, should we not take the vote again?

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament

Does any other member have doubt about whether their vote was recorded? [Interruption.] Due to the fact that there was a majority of only six in that vote, we will take it again. I ask all members to check their consoles.

The question is, that amendment S1M-1147.2, in the name of Alex Salmond, be agreed to.

Division number 1

For: 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, Lochhead, Richard, 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, Reid, Mr George, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Sheridan, Tommy, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, Wallace, Ben, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Dewar, Donald, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, 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, 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, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Radcliffe, Nora, Smith, Margaret

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament

The result of the division is: For 58, Against 65, Abstentions 2. There is a difference of one vote.

Amendment disagreed to.

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament

I understand that all the machinery is now functioning correctly. As members have not used their voting cards for some weeks, I urge them to wipe them on their trousers—or skirts—before they use them.

Photo of Kenneth Gibson Kenneth Gibson Scottish National Party

On a point of order. Some of us are not wearing trousers.

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament

I added, "or skirts".

The second question is, that amendment S1M-1147.1, in the name of David McLetchie, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 2

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

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament

The result of the division is: For 21, Against 105, Abstentions 0.

Amendment disagreed to.

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament

I put the main question, which is that the business motion in the name of Tom McCabe be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 3

For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Dewar, Donald, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, 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, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, 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, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Sheridan, Tommy, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, Wallace, Ben, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament

The result of the division is: For 70, Against 56, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to.