Schedule 8 — Consultation Before Certain Disposals by Local Authority Landlord or Registered Social Landlord

Housing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 4:15 pm on 13th June 2001.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour 4:15 pm, 13th June 2001

Amendment 127 is grouped with amendments 128, 196, 197, 137 and 146. They are all in Ms Hyslop's name.

Photo of Fiona Hyslop Fiona Hyslop Scottish National Party

It has been a long day: we have had the controversial, we have had the constructive, and we have just had the technical. I might refer to this group as the interesting one. We are now starting to address some of the contemporary and topical issues that face local authority areas where the council has taken the decision to consider wholesale stock transfer.

When we have concluded our consideration of the bill, we will perhaps consider the timetable and the speed with which it has been gone through. I suggest that schedule 8 was not, perhaps, given the attention at stage 2 that it merits. I am pleased that we now have the opportunity to pay it more attention at this stage. I say to Johann Lamont that it is true that I did not at stage 2 lodge amendments similar to these, but I am very pleased that these amendments have been accepted for consideration at stage 3.

There is a variety of amendments in the group. They are intended to address community ownership. The minister and deputy minister have frequently referred in numerous housing debates to the community ownership strategy that the Government is to embark on, but never once has community ownership been defined. We are giving the Parliament the opportunity to define community ownership legally. Such a definition would allow us to give out instructions on how to ensure that communities' and tenants' interests are protected in ballots.

Amendment 127 proposes that, when a ballot goes ahead, there must be a statement of whether the relevant body expects to become a "community ownership landlord". Amendment 146 defines "community ownership landlord" and bases that definition on an RSL that has 5,000 or fewer properties. The city of Glasgow is not a community and Dumfries and Galloway is not a community. Smaller-scale stock transfers and communities—

Photo of Fiona Hyslop Fiona Hyslop Scottish National Party

I ask the minister to allow me to develop my point. She will have an opportunity to come back in.

We should also consider the ballots. I have a challenge for the Executive. If it is confident about the merits of the case for wholesale stock transfer, will it include a question on the local authority, which would allow tenants to make a choice?

The idea behind amendment 196 is one that the SNP has argued for long and hard. If a ballot is to be held across a city or across an authority area, the results should be declared on a ward-by-ward basis. That would allow a community that wished to move ahead on stock transfer to do so, but equally it would ensure that a community that did not wish to proceed would not have to. Separate ballots on small transfers would not be required.

The argument about cherry picking has been made before. The lenders have not been concerned about small-scale stock transfers; rather, they have been concerned about how to manage the scale of the Glasgow stock transfer. That is where the pressure from lenders has come from, although they appear to have come to some kind of arrangement.

Amendment 197 deals with how a ballot should be conducted and gives the Parliament a range of opportunities. For example, it would allow ministers, if they so chose, to ensure that a small stock transfer included in the ballot a question on disposal. In Glasgow, ministers are simply proposing a transfer to Glasgow Housing Association, which is a big monolith. Amendment 197 would ensure an onward transfer ballot and would give people the opportunity to move towards small-scale community ownership. If the Executive has nothing to be frightened of and if it is saying that that is what it wants to do, we should include in the bill the proposals in amendment 197. That would protect tenants and they would know that they will not be stuck with GHA, which is Glasgow City Council mark 2.

In England, concerns have been raised about circumstances in which a ballot is lost, but the authority ballots again and again until it gets the "right" result. Amendment 197 would ensure that if a ballot is lost—if, for example, Glasgow tenants vote no—there is no opportunity for the authority to try again and again until it is successful.

If we are to bandy about terms such as community ownership, which is proposed in the Executive's housing strategy, we must know what they mean. Wholesale stock transfer in the city of Glasgow is not what I consider community ownership to be. My amendments would clarify matters. As I said, I am challenging the Executive—if it is confident about its proposals, it will have no problem with my amendments. I will listen with interest to the Executive's comments on them.

I move amendment 127.

Photo of Bill Aitken Bill Aitken Conservative

Fiona Hyslop has raised issues that are of undoubted interest and dealt with the fact that Glasgow is not a community. A one-off stock transfer in Glasgow is highly undesirable—she is right about that.

At one stage, my preferred option was for an immediate transfer of the stock to smaller, more manageable and more localised housing associations, but that was neither practical nor possible. It is clear that one could not allow tenants to vote in a ballot without knowing who their landlord was—or who their potential landlord would be. Therefore, my preference was not practical.

If there is a successful outcome to the tenants' ballot, we would like a near-immediate transfer to much smaller, more manageable units, because the success and strength of the housing association movement lies in the fact that it is localised. People will become much more involved and proactive in their area if they have an immediate input to that area. That has to be considered.

I acknowledge the points about cherry picking, which is surely more likely to be a problem if amendment 196 is agreed to. If things are done on a ward-by-ward basis, one can imagine high demand in Mosspark and Knightswood in Glasgow, whereas the Easterhouses and the Possils might be further down people's priorities. That problem has to be addressed.

The Conservatives are quite convinced that stock transfer is the way forward. We should be. After all, it was our policy in the first place—and I will certainly not allow ministers to forget it. It is a clear and far-sighted solution to the problem of lack of investment over many years.

From its perspective, what the SNP is trying to do is perfectly legitimate. It is trying to block this part of the bill because it does not believe in or accept stock transfer. To my mind, the SNP is totally misguided. The future for Glasgow's council house tenants has to be stock transfer. I expect that, over the years, many other local authorities will follow suit. We will not be supporting this group of SNP amendments.

Photo of Cathie Craigie Cathie Craigie Labour

Before I speak about the amendments, I will talk about Fiona Hyslop's point about the timetable and the speed at which this bill has progressed. We have spent many hours on it, but the committee was so pushed to deal with it that it was able to cancel its last meeting. We did not have to use all the time that was set aside for it.

Since the election in 1997, Labour has put housing at the top of the political agenda. I am pleased that the Scottish Executive has strengthened that commitment. We are moving forward by giving tenants and local organisations the opportunity to choose what is right for them. Fiona Hyslop knows that it has never been the Executive's intention that the housing stock in Glasgow should remain with one large housing authority. She knows that the Executive—the Labour party and our partners in Government—plans that tenants will be able to form themselves into small community-based organisations. It will be for the communities and the tenants to decide what size those organisations should be. Communities are not based on electoral ward boundaries or some boundaries that Fiona Hyslop prescribes; they are based on the way that people see them, and this bill will allow for that.

Today, Fiona Hyslop said—and the SNP has been saying it on the news—that the bill is all about stock transfer. It is not. It is about empowering communities and tenants and about improving the housing stock. We believe that the ballot should acknowledge the boundaries that tenants perceive. Tenants should make that decision themselves.

Fiona Hyslop has again tried to send to tenants in Glasgow in particular the message that there will be one huge landlord in Glasgow. She knows that that is wrong. She knows that she is sending out the wrong messages.

Photo of Fiona Hyslop Fiona Hyslop Scottish National Party

On what grounds can Cathie Craigie guarantee tenants that if they vote yes in a ballot on wholesale stock transfer in Glasgow—we do not know whether they will—transfer will be automatic? If she read the latest edition of the GHA's The Key magazine, she might find a different idea being articulated.

Photo of Cathie Craigie Cathie Craigie Labour

I think that I can give the tenants of Glasgow much more of a guarantee than Fiona Hyslop can ever do. I can guarantee the tenants of Glasgow that the Scottish Executive—the people who are in power and have the opportunity to make changes—will improve the quality of housing in Glasgow. The best way to do that is through stock transfer to draw in money and through giving tenants the opportunity and power to make decisions themselves. I ask the Parliament to reject the amendments lodged by Fiona Hyslop and Linda Fabiani.

Photo of Robert Brown Robert Brown Liberal Democrat 4:30 pm, 13th June 2001

We should be clear about what is happening. Fiona Hyslop set out what she proposes in a reasoned way. I have no difficulty with that. Bill Aitken described the amendments as blocking mechanisms. I would describe them as wrecking mechanisms.

A keystone policy of the Scottish Executive is supported by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. That policy will renovate Glasgow's housing in the area that I and other members in the chamber represent. The policy should be seen against the background of the failures of previous housing policies in that area and the failures in particular of the traditional municipal housing way of dealing with matters. We are offering the people of Glasgow the kind of renovation of housing stock that they have not seen in this generation. I am very confident that there will be a substantial vote in favour of that.

Photo of Robert Brown Robert Brown Liberal Democrat

No, I want to carry on.

We are offering a mechanism to secure the long-term maintenance and organisation of housing stock through community ownership. Community ownership has considerable potential because it is based on control of housing by the people who live in local areas. As Bill Aitken rightly said, the mechanism will not have Glasgow Housing Association as the end of the process.

I do not know how many times Scottish ministers have had to say this, but the second stage transfer to smaller community-based organisations is intrinsic to the procedure. That is a key point. A Scottish Executive proposal is on the table. That proposal has gone quite a long way down the line. There will be a ballot. The bill is not about that in particular, but there are a number of implications of it that we have to get in place to complete the framework.

There is on the table a proposal that is good and significantly better than anything offered by any of the other parties in the chamber. It will bring real investment into the housing stock in Glasgow. In schedule 8, the bill provides for a proper ballot of tenants that will be decisive on whether housing stock transfer goes ahead. It is time for the SSP and the SNP to come off the fence and stop pretending to the people of Glasgow that there is some other panacea. It is time for those parties to back proposals for long-overdue renovation of the housing stock, particularly that of City of Glasgow District Council.

Photo of Brian Adam Brian Adam Scottish National Party

I want to remind the chamber that we are dealing with a housing bill for the whole of Scotland. It is not about just Glasgow. Indeed, I thought that the City of Glasgow District Council had been wound up a considerable time ago and was now Glasgow City Council.

I do not believe that the choice that is being offered is the only one available. The kind of choice with which the Conservatives presented tenants before was, "How would you like to buy your house now?" Now, the choice is, "How would you like to transfer your house? We will give you a one-stage transfer or a two-stage transfer and if you want anything done to your house you will have to do what we want." I do not believe that that is in any way democratic. It is blackmail. Using the word "privatisation" to describe this kind of process would not be wide of the mark.

Photo of Brian Adam Brian Adam Scottish National Party

Tenants are not being left with a real choice. In those circumstances, if they happen to vote in favour of the proposal, saying that that is what they wanted all along would be self-deception. The SNP has an honourable position on the issue.

Photo of Johann Lamont Johann Lamont Labour

Can Brian Adam explain what seems to be a contradiction in the SNP's position? If stock transfer to community ownership is privatisation, why does Fiona Hyslop oppose the extension of the right to buy to housing association tenants, which she does on the basis of defending the social rented sector? Surely to goodness the SNP cannot possibly take the position that community ownership is a private sector way of dealing with housing.

Photo of Brian Adam Brian Adam Scottish National Party

"Community ownership" is an interesting phrase that was invented by new Labour. It is meant to describe something that in reality it is not. In the circumstances that Johann Lamont has described, I do not see how the community owns the stock.

Photo of Brian Adam Brian Adam Scottish National Party

I am more than happy to take an intervention from my colleague. [ Interruption. ]

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour

Order. Mr Adam, from whom are you taking an intervention?

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party

I thank my colleague for giving way. In 1987 and in 1988, Henry McLeish and I campaigned against the Conservatives' privatisation of the new-town housing stock. If Henry McLeish, who is now the First Minister, thought that that was privatisation, why is wholesale stock transfer not privatisation now?

Photo of Brian Adam Brian Adam Scottish National Party

The way the Conservatives dealt with the new-town housing stock is precisely the kind of arrangement that the new Labour-Liberal Democrat administration is seeking for council housing.

Photo of Brian Adam Brian Adam Scottish National Party

No, I will not take an intervention from Mr McAveety. [MEMBERS: "Aw."] How many ways would members like me to say no?

The Executive has no desire to leave any real function with local authorities. Stock transfer is another way of emasculating local authorities by ensuring that they no longer provide services but merely enable them. It is a matter of personal regret that the provision of services is being removed from local authorities. I suspect that that will also be a matter of regret to Labour members.

I am delighted to support the amendments that my colleague Fiona Hyslop has lodged. The route that the Executive has chosen is not the route to go down. I urge members to consider the issue. Wholesale stock transfer will affect the whole of Scotland. It will affect not only Glasgow; other local authorities are also going down that route. I suspect that whatever the outcome of Glasgow's ballot is, other ballots may not have the same outcome. I know that some authorities—having spent considerable sums of their tenants' money in exploring stock transfer—have already decided that they will not go down that route.

Photo of Margaret Curran Margaret Curran Labour

Our debate has been interesting—as ever—but I have a number of serious reservations about the amendments in this group. I also have reservations about the comments that were made when amendment 127 was moved. They pointed to some considerable confusion and contradicted various statements that have been made in the past.

The definition of "community ownership landlord" under amendment 146 and the requirement for separate ballots in each electoral ward under amendment 196 are not at all appropriate and are far too prescriptive. They attempt to impose a one-size-fits-all solution. I had thought that the SNP was opposed to such an approach.

Two of the key elements of our definition of community ownership are that there should be a partnership between tenants, councils and the wider community and that there should be flexibility to suit local circumstances. I am not at all surprised that Fiona Hyslop is struggling with the concept of community ownership, but it is certainly not about being prescriptive from the centre—it is about listening to tenants and that involves flexibility. Above all, it is for tenants to take the lead role in determining the model of community ownership and management that is most relevant to their local circumstances. We seek to avoid making assumptions about what tenants want, since community empowerment is at the heart of our policy.

I have made it absolutely clear on several occasions that the policy is not just about Glasgow and it is not a policy that is appropriate to all local authorities—it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. I have visited all the local authorities that are engaged in the process and they are developing their own models appropriate to their circumstances. That is quite proper.

In some instances, tenants may conclude they want local ownership. There may be other cases where tenants want a less intense involvement at a certain stage. They may be happy with involvement in management and new investment plans, and with a landlord that operates over a wider area.

Setting a maximum number of units for a community ownership landlord—it is not made clear whether the 5,000 limit in amendment 146 applies before or after the acquisition of the transferred houses—could ignore important local preferences and stifle appropriate and innovative local solutions. Many members of the SNP have told me that they regard local authority provision as community ownership. Does that mean that the SNP position is that no local authority should own more than 5,000 units? I cannot imagine that that is SNP policy, but perhaps Fiona Hyslop can clarify that in her summing up.

Neither can I imagine how such a position would fit other areas. For example, a city-wide Glasgow transfer will enable all tenants to vote in a single ballot. What distinguishes us from—I was going to say my friends, but perhaps I should qualify that. What distinguishes us from the Conservatives is that the entire housing debt burden will be lifted from Glasgow City Council. The Conservatives were never prepared to do that, but we are.

Photo of Margaret Curran Margaret Curran Labour

It makes no sense to have separate ballots for electoral divisions or wards, since they are entirely arbitrary areas as far as community ownership is concerned. The fact that the SNP would associate an electoral ward with a community illustrates a profound misunderstanding of communities and community ownership.

Photo of Margaret Curran Margaret Curran Labour

I was asked about this, so I shall continue. Local management arrangements will be in place immediately after transfer and there will be opportunities in Glasgow for tenants to move to local ownership if that is what they want. None of that would be achievable if amendments 146 and 196 were accepted. The overriding principle is that any move to local community ownership should reflect the wishes of tenants and proceed in a manner and at a pace that allows tenants to take the lead role.

Amendments 127 and 197 also are unnecessary. Paragraph 3(2) of schedule 8 already requires information on the identity of the prospective landlord to be provided to tenants. It will be quite clear to all tenants involved how decisions will be made, how voting rights are allocated and what the precise nature of the body in question is. Tenants will be able to make up their minds on what is being proposed without being told whether the body fits the SNP's arbitrary definition of a community ownership landlord. Tenants can make that decision for themselves.

Amendment 128 also is unnecessary. Schedule 8 is all about ensuring full consultation with tenants on proposals to transfer houses to community ownership. Tenants will also have been fully involved in the development of the proposal. By definition, if tenants vote against that proposal, they are voting to remain with the council.

Finally, on amendment 137, section 80 already contains a wide range of local authority functions in relation to housing and related matters for which ministers may provide grant. Section 82 makes it clear that local authorities, in turn, may provide assistance for the development and formation of RSLs. There is no reason to introduce a specific power to fund the option appraisal work as envisaged by the amendment. New housing partnership funding has already been made available to around three quarters of all Scottish councils to undertake such work, so amendment 137 is unnecessary.

Overall, the amendments in this group do not take us forward one jot. Although they appear to promote the idea of community landlords, they would in practice impose a straitjacket that would serve only to frustrate the development of genuine community ownership. Yet again we see the opportunism of the SNP, which is much more concerned with political objectives. The SNP faces both ways on community ownership. It is time for the SNP to come clean, cut the confusion, and say where it stands on community ownership. The amendments in this group are wrecking amendments, they are not helpful to Glasgow or to Scotland and I suggest that members oppose them.

Photo of Fiona Hyslop Fiona Hyslop Scottish National Party

I said that this would be the interesting section of the debate. I wish to put it on the record, as I have done on a number of occasions, that the SNP is opposed to wholesale stock transfer, but we support small-scale stock transfer where tenants want it. We should reflect on why it is—

Photo of Fiona Hyslop Fiona Hyslop Scottish National Party

Let me finish my point. We have had an interesting debate, and there are some interesting points to respond to. If the Executive is confident about the position that it is proposing for Glasgow, why is it worried about ballots for onward transfer? Why does the Executive not support those ballots? If it is confident about its position, why does the Executive not put the council on the ballot?

The Deputy Minister for Social Justice said that the Executive is lifting Glasgow's debt, but it is not. The Executive is servicing the debt for a period. No guarantees have been given on the future. Council tax payers in Glasgow could end up footing the bill in future years if the Executive has a mind to let that happen in future. This is an apposite challenge to the Executive. If the Executive does not support ballots on onward transfer, tenants in Glasgow will think, "What have you got to hide?" We have had some interesting responses from the minister. I will read the Official Report with interest, as I am sure will many people in Glasgow. The Key said that there would be onward transfer if it was financially viable. If it is not financially viable, is the Executive saying to Glasgow tenants that the process will stick at wholesale stock transfer because community ownership cannot be guaranteed and defined, as Bill Aitken said, as including all of Glasgow?

The amendments in the group have been a vehicle for exposing some of the contradictions at the heart of the Executive's policy for Glasgow and other areas. The Parliament would fail in its duty if it did not address schedule 8 and how you want to go about your ballots, and if it did not expose the problems at the heart of your so-called flagship policy.

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament 4:45 pm, 13th June 2001

I mention in passing that none of these policies is mine.

The question is, that amendment 127 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Division number 38

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

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

The result of the division is: For 35, Against 86, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 127 disagreed to.

[Amendment 128 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].]

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

The question is, that amendment 128 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Division number 39

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

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

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 85, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 128 disagreed to.

[Amendment 196 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].]

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

The question is, that amendment 196 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Division number 40

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

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

The result of the division is: For 33, Against 85, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 196 disagreed to.

[Amendment 197 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].]

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

The question is, that amendment 197 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Division number 41

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

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

The result of the division is: For 33, Against 86, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 197 disagreed to.