Section 1 — Prohibition and offences

Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 1:15 pm on 13th February 2002.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party 1:15 pm, 13th February 2002

Amendment 2, in the name of David Mundell, is grouped with amendments 34, 3, 35, 38, 44, 45, 54, 57, 60, 61, 62, 65, 67, 69 and 18. Amendment 2 does not pre-empt amendment 34, so if amendment 2 is agreed to, amendment 34 will still be called. Similarly, amendment 3 does not pre-empt amendment 35.

Photo of David Mundell David Mundell Conservative

There is some misapprehension that amendments that are lodged to find out the intention of those who are promoting the bill are deliberate wrecking amendments. That is not the case. My intention is to make clear what lies behind the provisions and to ensure that the Parliament proceeds as a legislature and is not overcome by sentiment.

Yesterday, when I asked the chamber clerks to provide me with a summary of the principles on which the bill was based, they advised that they were unable to do so, because the principles are not set down definitively in one place. The will of Parliament is the will that it expressed at the end of the stage 1 debate; that will is a coalescing of the views and opinions that were put forward by MSPs during the debate. There has already been, and will continue to be, much controversy about the will of Parliament at stage 1, during the stage 2 committee debates and even today. It is clear that, on 19 September, Parliament made no specific reference to the number or nature of criminal offences that it anticipated would be introduced as a result of the passage of the bill. That is why it is particularly important that the Parliament expresses positively today its will either that new specific offences should be created or, as I would hope, that the existing laws and principles of Scots law are adequate to encompass what is envisaged in sections 1(3) and 1(4) of the bill as amended at stage 2.

I am not satisfied that the case has been made for the introduction of two new criminal offences. As the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's stage 1 report pointed out:

"the creation of a new criminal offence is a serious matter, and generally one of resort where legislation initiated by the state is concerned".

While the committee recognised that there was no reason in principle why a member's bill should not create a new offence, it concurred with the view that Parliament, when considering legislation that makes criminal activities that have been lawful for a long time, should be scrupulous in ensuring that the scope and extent of the criminal conduct is as tightly defined as possible. Indeed, the committee was unable to reach a unanimous view on whether the sections as then drafted made the offences sufficiently clear.

When Parliament met on 19 September, clear undertakings were made that new proposals would be introduced relating to the offences that are set out in the bill. However, when Lord Watson lodged his amendments five minutes before the deadline for stage 2 consideration in committee, it was clear that—contrary to my expectations and those of others—there was no intent to introduce a specific crime of participating in a mounted fox hunt. Indeed, somewhat contrary to what could be said to be the will of Parliament as expressed on 19 September, the bill contains no specific prohibition of mounted activities and makes no specific reference to other identified activities such as hare coursing and fox baiting.

When Mike Rumbles sought to raise the issue of sport, which Tricia Marwick had referred to in her closing address, the Scottish Executive, for once neutral, interjected and that amendment was voted down. Accordingly, from the stage 2 process, we emerged with three offences.

The principal offence is set out in section 1(1) and the other offences are set out in sections 1(3) and 1(4). As I have said, I am not satisfied that the case has been made for those exemptions in the context of existing criminal law of Scotland, which makes it a crime for someone to conspire to be, or to be art and part, or to be acting in concert relative to criminal activity. Anybody who actively supported criminal activity, with intent, would already be capable of being charged with an offence under Scots law. Those who support the provisions of section 1 have to justify why they believe that two new crimes should be created.

A contextual point will arise throughout this afternoon's deliberations. If Parliament is to pass the bill, it must determine where the offences lie on the scale of criminality. The provisions indicate that they are rated higher than many drugs offences, for example. I believe that those who support the bill must set out the case for the inclusion of sections 1(3) and 1(4).

Since Monday, I have become increasingly concerned about section 1(4) because Mrs Karen Gillon has lodged an amendment that seeks to compensate only those people who would have been carrying out an activity had that activity not been made criminal by section 1 of the bill. I cannot believe that Mrs Gillon would promote an amendment that seeks to compensate, in effect, nobody. That is what would happen if my understanding of responsibility, as it relates to direct control over dogs, is correct. I want members to understand what is meant by responsibility in the bill, because it has an important bearing on the compensation amendment that has been lodged.

I have no difficulty with Mr Finnie's amendments 34 and 35. If the offences that are referred to in sections 1(3) and 1(4) are to be created, that would be better done on the basis of amendments 34 and 35. My only query is why such textual amendments were not lodged at stage 2 when the Executive was represented at all 18 hours of the Rural Development Committee's deliberations on the bill.

I move amendment 2.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

I call the minister to speak to amendments 34, 35, 38, 44, 45, 54, 57, 60, 61, 62, 65, 67 and 69, and the other amendments in the group.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Despite that long list, I assure members that I shall be mercifully brief.

I start by making it clear that my position as minister and the position of Allan Wilson, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, are quite simple. We are trying to do a number of things. We are seeking to move amendments where we believe genuinely that, if it is the will of Parliament to pass the bill, the context and content of the bill must be in a form that will eventually make it workable in both a practical and a legal sense—but primarily the latter. However, we have no position on the policy instrument. After all, the bill is a member's bill. Obviously, Allan Wilson and I have to comment where any amendment or section cuts across existing Executive policy. Finally, we might wish to indicate areas where we think that the amendment or removal of a provision might cause some difficulties even if it does not lead to the bill being unworkable. My colleague and I will proceed on that basis.

David Mundell moved amendment 2. The group also includes amendment 3. The changes that are sought by those amendments are fundamental and one would normally expect them to have been made at stage 2. Clearly, it is for the chamber to decide whether the amendments are appropriate at this stage.

Like all the amendments in the group, amendments 34 and 35 are consequential upon a stage 2 amendment that changed the manner in which section 1(1) was expressed. Given the terms in which that section is now expressed, it is clearly no longer appropriate to refer to contravening subsection (1).

The remainder of the amendments in my name in the group—amendments 38, 44, 45, 54, 57, 60, 61, 62, 65, 67 and 69—are drafting amendments. I hope that they will all be accepted. They are merely technical amendments that are designed to reflect a change of wording in the offence provision and to make its interpretation clear and unambiguous.

The group also contains Alex Fergusson's amendment 18, which no doubt he will move, which seeks to define a defence to the offence. In terms of interpreting the bill—if it is passed—we do not regard amendment 18 as helpful, but we have no further comment to make on it.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

I call Alex Fergusson to speak to amendment 18 and the other amendments in the group.

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson Conservative

I have no comment to make on the other amendments in the group. I will keep my remarks on amendment 18 brief. The amendment seeks to make an insertion at section 5 on proceedings and penalties. It is a simple amendment, which is self-explanatory and requires little to be said about it. Amendment 18 will ensure that innocent landowners are not prosecuted during the course of proceedings under the legislation.

The whole chamber could agree that it would be wholly unfair for a landowner—let us not forget that the Scottish Executive is a landowner, as is the National Trust for Scotland—to be prosecuted in connection with an offence that a tenant committed by allowing the tenanted land to be used for hunting or coursing. If amendment 18 is not accepted, landowners could be placed in the impossible, and surely undesirable, position of having to police their tenants in a rather unsatisfactory manner, and indeed of having to prove that they themselves did not knowingly permit an offence to take place. That reverses the normal burden of proof, which is surely not the intention of the bill.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

I will not be able to call all speakers at all stages of this debate, but I will try to keep a balanced coverage.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party

Before I start, I record that I have received legal advice from the Scottish Campaign Against Hunting With Dogs and Advocates for Animals.

This Parliament, and those of us who have fought for many years for a Scots Parliament, have a duty to ensure that the legislation that we pass is good legislation. By that I do not suggest that we should all agree with every piece of legislation that is passed—I do not—but that the legislation itself should be sound. It is the duty of all members to ensure that we pass good legislation.

Over the past few months, amendments have been lodged and passed by members of the Rural Development Committee that do three things. Today, we have a whole slew of amendments that serve the same purposes. First, they seek to confuse; secondly, they seek to wreck; and thirdly, they are designed to create loopholes in the bill to allow the very activities that this Parliament wishes to ban to continue, and perhaps pave the way for future challenges in the courts to legislation that the Scottish Parliament has passed.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party

Everyone in this Parliament has a duty to ensure that that does not happen. Bristow Muldoon, I and others will do our best to guide members through this stage this afternoon. If members are opposed to the bill—I accept that some members are opposed to the bill—they should oppose the motion to pass the bill. That is the moral and honourable position to take.

David Mundell's amendments 2 and 3 and Alex Fergusson's amendment 18 are quite outrageous. Have those members not realised that the Parliament has expressed its support for the principle of a ban on hunting, or are they determined to create more loopholes?

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party

I had hoped that Alex Fergusson, following his admission in The Daily Telegraph last week that his Rural Development Committee had let in wrecking amendments, would take this opportunity to remedy the situation. He has not done so.

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson Conservative

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am quite aware that as convener of the Rural Development Committee, and as an MSP, I am open to criticism for my actions. However, given that Miss Marwick, I assume, does not know which amendments were or were not refused by me at stage 2, is it right that aspersions should be cast on the clerks of the Rural Development Committee, on whose advice the convener relied? That is what Tricia Marwick is doing.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party

After the first of perhaps many bogus points of order, I will continue.

Hare coursing is one of the key activities that the Parliament thought it was banning. I do not know whether David Mundell and Alex Fergusson have taken the time to brief themselves on how hare coursing works. Two types of people are involved: one set owns the dogs and the other owns the land. Any realistic attempt to ban hare coursing must deal with both groups of people. Exempting landowners from legislation may be the Conservative way, but I do not think that it is the way of the Parliament.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party

Mounted fox hunts also involve two groups of people.

Alex Fergusson's amendment 18 was roundly slammed, even in the Rural Development Committee. Rhoda Grant made a telling point when she gave the example of a landowner saying that his factor and not himself had given permission. Amendments 2, 3 and 18 are designed to create more loopholes in the bill. I urge members to vote against them.

Photo of Fergus Ewing Fergus Ewing Scottish National Party 1:30 pm, 13th February 2002

I cannot support the Conservative members' stage 3 amendments 2, 3 and 18. That will come as no surprise, as I opposed them at stage 2 and my arguments remain the same. They are arguments that, I hope, are based on clear rationality; if the will of Parliament is to ban mounted hunting, any landowner who knowingly permits that activity must surely be committing a crime.

The wording that is used in section 1(3) is "knowingly permits". I fail to see why section 1 should be amended. I agree with the remarks that were made by Tricia Marwick, although I may not express the argument in quite the same way. I also endorse and support the Executive amendments in the group. Frankly, they are amendments that serve to tidy up the bill. I hope that members will support them. I urge members to reject the Conservative members' amendments 2, 3 and 18 and to support the Executive amendments in the group. I hope that my sponsorship of the Executive amendments will add considerably to the vote. I am not sure whether my role in the chamber makes me a quarried species—time will tell.

I will be brief, but I want to make some serious remarks. We are engaged in a serious activity—the most serious activity that legislators undertake—which is the activity of creating new crimes. David Mundell was right to quote from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee report to the Rural Development Committee. That report rightly acknowledged that:

"the Parliament should be scrupulous in ensuring that the scope and extent of the criminal conduct is as tightly defined as possible".

The reason for that is that surely it would be wrong for anyone to turn people who are performing legitimate control activities in the countryside into potential criminals. We have a serious duty today and I hope that we will all have a free vote on the matter. That will ensure that, at the end of the day, we do not turn gamekeepers, terrier and hill pack men into potential criminals.

At stage 2, my approach was to attempt to improve what I regarded as fundamental flaws—conceptually and in drafting terms—in the bill. As Lord Watson will acknowledge, many critics at stage 1 expressed grave concerns about the need to protect those who perform pest control activities. My efforts at stage 2 were in no sense whatever intended to wreck the bill; they were intended to make the bill workable. I say that as someone who will never be accused of being the bill's most fervent supporter.

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat

I support the Executive amendments in the group, because they will tidy up the bill. Like Fergus Ewing, I oppose amendments 2, 3 and 18. In particular, I oppose amendment 18.

We have a duty today, when we examine every amendment, to ensure that we make a clear distinction between outlawing hunting for sport and hare coursing—the purpose of the bill as espoused by Mike Watson—and ensuring that the legitimate activities of Scottish gamekeepers, foot packs and farmers in upland Scotland are protected.

I do not want confusion to be added to the bill and amendment 18 would do just that. The bill quite clearly refers to

"An owner or occupier of land who knowingly permits another person to enter".

Amendment 18 is completely unnecessary because it would only add confusion. I urge members to vote against amendments 2, 3 and 18.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

I want to make progress and regret that some members will not be called. I move straight to the member-in-charge, Bristow Muldoon.

Photo of Bristow Muldoon Bristow Muldoon Labour

I welcome the opportunity to comment on this group of amendments and to speak as one of the co-members in charge of the bill. I thank Mike Watson and Tricia Marwick for their work on the bill to date. I also want to declare the same interest that Tricia Marwick declared: I have received some advice and guidance from the SCAHD and Advocates for Animals on the preparation of amendments and the impact of other members' amendments. I have reported that assistance to the Standards Committee.

I want to leave as much time as possible for other members to speak, so I do not intend to take up too much time in this debate. As amendments are debated, members who support the bill will make their views clear.

The first group of amendments is fairly simple. All the minister's amendments are technical; indeed, the bill's supporters are perfectly comfortable with the amendments that the minister has lodged and will support them all today.

I turn to amendments 2, 3 and 18. When the bill was handed back to the Rural Development Committee after the stage 1 parliamentary debate, no one expected it to receive an easy ride. However, it would have been reasonable to expect that the bill that came back to Parliament would not permit mounted fox hunting. Alex Fergusson has already indicated to The Daily Telegraph that the bill now permits that activity. Given that fact, it is all the more striking that the amendments were either rejected or not debated by the Rural Development Committee at stage 2. Seven committee members to four voted against what are now amendments 2 and 3, and what is now amendment 18 was withdrawn after it received cross-party criticism. If the Rural Development Committee—which agreed to a number of damaging amendments—rejected the proposals, it is all the more likely that Parliament will do the same.

David Mundell proposes that the people who knowingly permit their land or their dogs to be used for hunting should be exempt from the law and its penalties. However, as Mike Watson pointed out at a meeting of the Rural Development Committee, that would mean that people could organise mounted fox hunting or hare coursing events and not be subject to the bill.

David Mundell's suggestion was rejected at stage 2 by all Labour and SNP members.

Photo of Bristow Muldoon Bristow Muldoon Labour

No. I want to respond to amendments 2, 3 and 18. Plenty of members have spoken in support of them.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

Order. The member is not giving way, Mr Gallie.

Photo of Bristow Muldoon Bristow Muldoon Labour

Fergus Ewing made a telling point against David Mundell's suggestion. He said:

"Having decided, as a committee, that it is an offence to deliberately hunt a wild mammal with a dog, it would seem to be contradictory that we do not go on to conclude that those who have a role to play, as occupiers or owners of land, should also be committing an offence if they give express permission for that activity."—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 30 October 2001; c 2312.]

In lodging amendment 18, Alex Fergusson has taken over an amendment that was initially lodged by Murray Tosh and, rightly, criticised at the time. Rhoda Grant said that the amendment

"would read better if it said 'not involved' rather than 'not directly involved', as the landowner could be indirectly involved and therefore guilty of the crime along with the occupier of the land."—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 4 December 2001; c 2545.]

At the time, Fergus Ewing commented that the amendment would have an effect that Murray Tosh probably did not intend. He said that it would "provide a defence" for the landowner who gave implicit or indirect permission to a land manager or factor. If the land manager or factor passed on that permission, the landowner could then say that he only spoke to them and did not give direct permission.

Murray Tosh withdrew his amendment and I hope that, having heard the arguments against amendment 18 at the committee and now in Parliament, Alex Fergusson will do the same. It would be wrong to agree to a loophole that gave a landowner indirect permission to allow hunting and therefore exempted him from the bill's provisions.

For the sake of clarity, I oppose the Conservative amendments 2, 3 and 18.

Photo of David Mundell David Mundell Conservative

Mr Muldoon has made an interesting point, which is that the Rural Development Committee's view on amendments should prevail.

Photo of David Mundell David Mundell Conservative

That is what he said. He pointed out that, if the committee passed an amendment, that gave it credibility, because its members had listened to the arguments in detail. Let us ensure that Mr Muldoon follows that philosophy throughout the afternoon.

Reading from the Rural Development Committee report is not especially productive. This is stage 3, and any arguments about the amendments must be made today. I ask once again why two more crimes are being introduced to the law of Scotland. Why are we not satisfied that the existing laws of Scotland allow the prosecution of people who conspire to commit criminal activities or who help others to carry out criminal activities? I have never said that those people should be exempt. What I am saying is that the existing law of Scotland does the business. There is no need to introduce additional crimes into Scots law for this purpose alone. That is why I press amendment 2.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

There will be a division. As this is the first division in the grouping, I shall allow two minutes for voting.

Division number 3

For: Aitken, Bill, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fergusson, Alex, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Harding, Mr Keith, Johnstone, Alex, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Mundell, David, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Wallace, Ben
Against: Adam, Brian, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harper, Robin, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, 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, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Oldfather, Irene, Paterson, Mr Gil, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robison, Shona, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Russell, Michael, Scott, Tavish, Sheridan, Tommy, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Thomson, Elaine, Ullrich, Kay, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Welsh, Mr Andrew, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
Abstentions: Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Tosh, Mr Murray

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

The result of the division is: For 17, Against 106, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 2 disagreed to.

Amendment 34 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 3 moved—[David Mundell].

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 4

For: Aitken, Bill, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fergusson, Alex, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Harding, Mr Keith, Johnstone, Alex, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Mundell, David, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Wallace, Ben
Against: Adam, Brian, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harper, Robin, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, 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, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Oldfather, Irene, Paterson, Mr Gil, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robison, Shona, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Russell, Michael, Scott, Tavish, Sheridan, Tommy, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Thomson, Elaine, Ullrich, Kay, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Welsh, Mr Andrew, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
Abstentions: Tosh, Mr Murray

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

The result of the division is: For 17, Against 106, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 3 disagreed to.

Amendment 35 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.