Section 1 — Access rights

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 2:34 pm on 22nd January 2003.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament 2:34 pm, 22nd January 2003

Let us proceed with the first group. Amendment 166, in the name of Ross Finnie, is grouped with amendments 176 and 211.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

For information—I apologise for not informing you of this earlier, Sir David—the odd numbered groupings will be led by Allan Wilson; the even numbered will be led by me. We promise not to lead for any longer than seven hours and 15 minutes.

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

What an interesting allocation. Did you say that odd groupings are yours, Mr Finnie?

Photo of Allan Wilson Allan Wilson Labour

I promise not to take seven and a half hours to deal with any individual—[ Interruption. ]

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

Order. I am sorry to stop you right away, minister. This is a complex procedure, which is not helped if there are conversations going on around the chamber. We really have to concentrate on this.

Photo of Allan Wilson Allan Wilson Labour

There was a considerable amount of debate at both stage 1 and stage 2 about the purpose of part 1 of the bill. There are those who argue that there is an existing common law right of access to land, and that the purpose of the bill is to enshrine that right in statute. On the other hand, there are those who argue there is no such common law right of access; that trespass is part of the law of Scotland; and that access to land is currently granted only with the explicit or implied consent of the owner. At least some members of the Justice 2 Committee share the former view. As we have explained at stage 1 and stage 2, the Executive is satisfied that trespass is part of the law of Scotland.

It was to get away from that confusion that we decided to legislate. This is the purpose of the bill: to establish clear and unambiguous rights of responsible access to land. As members will recall, the decision to legislate followed advice from Scottish Natural Heritage, which was based on the views of the access forum. Let me quote from SNH's advice:

"the existing law may be understood by lawyers but it is not clear to members of the public, who are deterred from exercising reasonable access by uncertainty about their rights and by the fear of, or previous experience of, confrontation with owners and land managers who in their turn have difficulty in protecting their interests in the face of irresponsible or provocative behaviour by the public".

In other words, no one is quite sure where they stand.

The recommendation of SNH and the access forum was to cut across the confusion about the current law and to establish new rights of access to land and water for informal recreation and passage. The recommendation was not in favour of legislation to clarify the existing law. The access forum specifically rejected that approach. It stated:

"Above all, the Forum believes that clarifying the law in this way would not address the fundamental weaknesses of the law that have been identified and would not help the Government to meet its commitment to give people greater opportunity to enjoy the countryside. The Forum agreed, therefore, to drop this option."

I agree entirely with that conclusion. The purpose of the bill is to establish new rights of responsible access. For that reason, the bill as introduced opened with the clear statement:

"Everyone has the rights created by this Part of this Act."

As I said at stage 2, I believe that that statement accurately encompassed the purpose of the bill. However, the Justice 2 Committee took the view that the word "created" should be replaced by "secured". As I understand it, at least part of the thinking behind the amendment was that the bill should be about securing existing rights of access, whatever those might be.

As I have explained, I do not consider that to be the proper purpose of the bill. First, such an approach would run counter to the advice that was given by SNH and the access forum. Secondly, instead of cutting across the current confusion and uncertainty, it would simply perpetuate that unsatisfactory state of affairs. Thirdly—and perhaps most important—there is a risk that a court could determine that the bill does no more than attempt to regulate rights that do not exist. There is a real danger that the bill would achieve nothing. I cannot believe that anyone in the chamber wishes that.

For those reasons, I have lodged amendments to the first line of the bill. It is important that the bill is clearly seen to establish new statutory rights of responsible access. As the bill states, those new rights do not diminish or replace existing rights of access. Rightly, in my view, the bill says nothing about the current legal position in respect of access. What it does is establish clear and unambiguous rights of access that will provide the public with the confidence to go out and enjoy the countryside with a firm understanding of where they can and cannot go. That clarity will also benefit landowners, who will know exactly what the public can and cannot do on the land.

This bill is the opportunity to create in Scotland a modern approach to access that meets in a balanced way the needs both of the public and of owners and managers of land. It is important that we get that right. For that reason, I commend amendment 166 to the chamber.

Amendment 211, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, would have the effect of inserting the word "statutory" after "establish" in the long title and mirrors the amendment that we propose to the first line of the bill. Although all rights that an act establishes are necessarily statutory rights, I am prepared to accept amendment 211 in the interests of consistency. I intend to not move amendment 176 and to support amendment 211.

I move amendment 166.

Photo of Stewart Stevenson Stewart Stevenson Scottish National Party

I thank the minister for his gracious acceptance of my amendment 211. Our shared objective is to open up the countryside to responsible access. At a later stage, the Scottish National Party will criticise certain elements of the bill for their lack of ambition, but in respect of access the bill comes close to striking a reasonable balance.

It is true that in its deliberations after taking evidence the Justice 2 Committee came to the conclusion that although there is a law of trespass—an act dealing with the matter was passed in the 1880s—there is no criminal offence associated with access. The common man and woman of Scotland assert the right to roam and to take access to land, and have done so for many years.

The bill and amendment 166 simply say either that we are creating new rights in statute or that we are securing the ones that we have. In the light of the minister's gracious acceptance of amendment 211 and of the fact that we will have many other interesting things to debate in other groupings, I will leave it at that and thank the minister.

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament 2:45 pm, 22nd January 2003

Thank you. You will in fact be moving amendment 211 right at the tail end of tomorrow.

Photo of Pauline McNeill Pauline McNeill Labour

I support amendment 211 in the name of Stewart Stevenson, having lodged a similar amendment. I am pleased that the minister has accepted amendment 211, because I think that it is consistent with amendment 166.

The Justice 2 Committee rejected the word "create" and favoured the word "secure", as we thought that it was consistent with the position that we took in our stage 1 report, which is that there is no common law of trespass. We have a longstanding disagreement with the Executive, the Law Society of Scotland and others on that matter. However, amendment 166 is a good suggestion and it provides a good position for the Executive to take, because the word "statutory" simply reflects the legal position that we have just now. The amendment does not prevent those members who support the Justice 2 Committee's position from continuing to hold that view and it does not prevent those who support the Executive's interpretation of the law of trespass from holding that view.

I still support the Tom Johnson position of 1942, which is that there is no law of trespass. There is a presumption of the right to roam in Scotland, but I support amendments 166 and 211. I commend the Executive for its sensible approach.

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

Before I call the next speaker I appeal again for conversations in the chamber to be limited to the bill. Any other conversations can take place in the coffee lounge, because there will be a two-minute break for divisions. Please let us have as much quiet as possible.

Photo of Bill Aitken Bill Aitken Conservative

I regret to perhaps introduce a note of controversy into the proceedings, but amendment 166 encapsulates the difference between the Conservative party's viewpoint and the viewpoints held by other parties in the Parliament.

In the Conservative view, part 1 of the bill is largely unnecessary. Those who wish to access the countryside responsibly have been able to do so for years, almost invariably without let or hindrance. Although there might have been the odd local difficulty from time to time, when witnesses to the Justice 2 Committee were urged to be specific, as opposed to relating the apocryphal, there was little to suggest that land managers sought to frustrate those who wish to walk through Scotland's countryside and hills.

Some of the attitudes that exist beggar belief. To listen to some members of the Parliament speaking on this matter when it was previously debated, one would have thought that land managers had been producing mantraps to prevent people accessing the land.

The plain fact is that common sense has prevailed for many years with regard to access to the countryside. Just as there is very little evidence to suggest that ramblers or others have at any time behaved irresponsibly, there is a similar dearth of evidence to suggest that land managers have attempted to deny them access.

The problem is that by seeking to legislate, problems can be created where none previously existed. In Yorkshire parlance, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The entire part 1 of the bill is living testimony to the Executive's obsession with legislating on and interfering in every aspect of Scottish life.

Despite having taken evidence from a number of erudite sources, the question of the law of access and trespass remains undoubtedly vague. Pauline McNeill, the deputy minister and Stewart Stevenson were right to correct that problem. The most recent case law is 100 years old and relates to a hackney carriage entering land owned by some long-defunct railway company. The obvious and logical conclusion that one must draw is that if there had been problems, there would have been litigation. The fact that there has been no litigation is evidence that there is no need to establish statutory rights. The legal concept of the reasonable man should have prevailed. Unfortunately, the Executive is less than reasonable.

It is inevitable that the introduction of such legislation will create problems. This part of the bill will simply make lawyers rich and judges famous and it will bring ridicule on the law of Scotland. The Executive must consider the matter seriously and must leave the people of Scotland to behave as adults, as they have behaved for many years. There have been no significant problems. Why interfere with something that works?

Photo of Fergus Ewing Fergus Ewing Scottish National Party

I hope that it is not out of order to begin by saying that, following my father's recent death, my family and I much appreciate the support that we have had from all members of all parties.

It gives me great pleasure to support the principle of a statutory right of access. The current law is undoubtedly as clear as mud. Therefore, for the Scottish Parliament to bring clarity where previously there was only confusion is an excellent act.

It is interesting that although the first Conservative speaker said that the existing law is vague, he also said that there was no need to end that vagueness. I suspect that we will hear many more such contradictions. Bill Aitken argued that there was no need to create a statutory right of access because no one had gone to court.

Photo of Phil Gallie Phil Gallie Conservative

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I make my point of order in a reasonable fashion. It was an omission for Fergus Ewing not to have declared an interest. As a lawyer, he will obviously be affected by the bill, given what Bill Aitken said.

Photo of Fergus Ewing Fergus Ewing Scottish National Party

I had no intention of failing to declare an interest. Contrary to what Bill Aitken said, although I am a lawyer, I assure members that I have no expectation of becoming rich as a result of the bill.

I should perhaps also declare that, for about 15 years, I was a member of a mountain rescue team. I know that, in contrast to the Conservative party, that team will be delighted by the establishment of a statutory right of access.

If Bill Aitken's argument is that there have been no bad landowners over the years and that no one has tried to stop folk having access to our hills, all I can say is that he must have been in Glasgow city chambers for far too long. The reason for the lack of litigation might be that people who have been prevented from getting access to our hills and mountains might have taken the not unreasonable position of not wanting to make lawyers rich by litigating on the issue.

I understand that Ross Finnie's amendment 176 is not being moved, but I am delighted to support his amendment 166 and Stewart Stevenson's amendment 211, which bring clarity where there has been utter confusion.

Photo of George Lyon George Lyon Liberal Democrat

I would like to add the Liberal Democrats' support for amendments 166 and 211. Bill Aitken said that the law was not broken, so there was no need to fix it. I disagree with that point of view. For many years, there has been a dispute about whether there is a law of trespass in Scotland or whether there is a right to roam. The fact that the bill will create a statutory right of access once and for all should be welcomed by all sides in the debate.

During the Justice 2 Committee's deliberations, it became clear that there were arguments on both sides about whether there was a law of trespass in Scotland. The Law Society of Scotland made it clear that there is a law of trespass in Scotland, which is extremely difficult for landowners to enforce. If landowners wish to stop individuals from roaming over their land, they need to seek an interdict to do so.

I support the Law Society's view and I welcome the bill's creation of a statutory right of access for everyone in Scotland who wishes to roam over Scotland's land. I support the Executive's amendment 166 and Stewart Stevenson's amendment 211.

Photo of Scott Barrie Scott Barrie Labour

The comments of preceding speakers have already illustrated the lines of the different parties. I, too, speak in favour of amendments 166 and 211. I was the member who lodged amendment 19 at stage 2, which was successful in replacing the word "created" with the word "secured". The Executive is to be congratulated on lodging amendment 166, which will provide a better wording than that which the Justice 2 Committee established at stage 2.

The bill will provide a statutory right of access but, as Pauline McNeill accurately explained, that will in no way eliminate or diminish existing common law rights of access. That is an important point. By agreeing to amendment 166, I hope that we can get away from the confusion that has existed for so long about whether Scotland has a law of trespass. The Executive has done well in the wording that it has proposed.

It is equally important that we support Stewart Stevenson's amendment 211, which will ensure that the long title accurately reflects what is in the bill. I am glad to see that the Executive will support that amendment.

Photo of John Home Robertson John Home Robertson Labour

There is, of course, a trespass act from the 19 th century—the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865—but it is very restricted, as it refers only to camping and the lighting of fires within a certain distance of public roads. It has always been commonly understood that pedestrians have a right of responsible access to the open countryside of Scotland.

Contrary to what Bill Aitken said, a problem has arisen because, in many parts of Scotland, what I describe as new-age landowners have come into rural areas and have sought to obstruct that commonly understood public access to the open countryside. Over the years, I have had to deal with some quite nasty cases of confrontation, which responsible walkers have experienced in the Lammermuir hills on the edge of my constituency. I remember raising the issue at Westminster. It would have taken years to find a legislative opportunity to get the necessary legislation through Parliament down at Westminster.

It is very good news that this new Scottish Parliament is addressing this fundamental issue. Frankly, I do not know or care whether we are creating or restoring that right. The important thing is that we are establishing what most people believe to be the proper and reasonable position of responsible pedestrian access to Scotland's open countryside. That access needs to be properly regulated, and it will be regulated by the access code. I am delighted that we are taking this step. I strongly support the bill and I support Ross Finnie's amendment 166.

Photo of Brian Fitzpatrick Brian Fitzpatrick Labour

I support the Executive's position on the amendments. At citizenship courses in Scotland in the future, people will remember sentences of some of our legislation:

"There shall be a Scottish Parliament."

Similarly:

"Everyone has the rights secured by this Part of this Act."

The Scottish Labour party was founded on a demand for law reform: for a local Parliament in Scotland with a Scottish Executive; for the minimum wage; and, indeed, for prohibition. We may have moved on from prohibition, but the assertions and claims that were made when the Scottish Labour party was founded are being realised today.

I also commend the important establishment of the security of rights. Unlike Bill Aitken—I am delighted to see that the dividing lines in Scottish politics remain—I do not accept the notion that the bill creates uncertainty or that it creates work for lawyers. The bill crystallises and improves on existing rights. If nothing else, the bill assists in dispensing with the confusion.

There has, of course, been an almost theological divide in Scotland as to whether Scotland has a law of trespass, but that should not be the fault line that runs through this debate. We see where that fault line lies. It lies with those who are now bidding to be the landowners' party, or Laidlaw's party, or whatever they wish to call themselves.

Mr Aitken asked for evidence of instances where people have been put off land. Anecdotal evidence is always bad, but I was part of a group of parents and children who were turned back from an estate on new year's day. It transpired that the people who turned us back were not even the landowners, but were simply renting a lodge from the landowner. They thought that that gave them the entitlement to turn back people who were exercising a right to roam.

At that stage, the question was whether one should proceed to try and summon the police from God knows where. Should one try and proceed to serve an interdict while out walking with one's children? Should one bother to take up that time? The answer was no. In part—aside from the cost and delay—that explains the absence of litigation. People do not like being disrupted, inconvenienced or put off when they are only seeking to exercise their responsible right to roam.

Photo of Bill Aitken Bill Aitken Conservative 3:00 pm, 22nd January 2003

As Mr Fitzpatrick is a member of the Faculty of Advocates, would he suggest that courts should accept the sort of anecdotal evidence that he appears to be happy to accept? Is that not indicative of a degree of prejudice on his part?

Photo of Brian Fitzpatrick Brian Fitzpatrick Labour

I am always delighted to take interventions from Mr Aitken because he always makes the argument for me. It was Mr Aitken who invited the evidence, but when he was given that evidence he did not like it because it did not fit with his ideological position. He therefore finds himself making inane interventions in a serious debate.

The Tories will sit where they sit. The Tories will adopt the stance that they adopt. However, the majority of members will welcome the chance to put beyond peradventure rights that some thought that they held, and to improve rights for many of Scotland's people. We should welcome the fact that everyone's access rights will be secured and I have no difficulty in doing that.

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

As the minister does not want to respond, I will put the question.

The question is that amendment 166 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 1

For: Adam, Brian, Alexander, Ms Wendy, 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, Eadie, Helen, 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, 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, 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, Scott, Tavish, Sheridan, Tommy, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stevenson, Stewart, 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
Against: 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, Monteith, Mr Brian, Mundell, David, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Ben, Young, John

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

The result of the division is: For 103, Against 18, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 166 agreed to.

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

We come to amendment 61, which Mr Finnie will deal with. To save time, I will not read out all the amendments in the group; they are on the marshalled list.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

Amendment 62 addresses concerns raised by educational groups that the bill as drafted could result in confusion about which group activities fall within access rights. For example, a school hillwalking group or a geological society outing would clearly be recreational and fall within access rights. However, a school geography or biology field trip or a university geology field trip might be considered more educational than recreational, and might be deemed to fall outwith access rights.

I accept that the distinction should be clarified because it is potentially confusing. Amendment 62 would bring within access rights being on or crossing land for the purposes of carrying out a relevant educational activity. Amendment 66 would provide a definition of "relevant educational activity" as furthering the understanding of natural or cultural heritage. Amendments 61, 64, 65 and 86 are consequential on amendment 62.

Amendments 66A, 66B and 66C seek to modify the definition of "relevant educational activity". Amendments 66A and 66C would widen the definition to refer to furthering not only the understanding of natural or cultural heritage, but the exercise of any activity within access rights. I assume that the intention is to ensure that outdoor educational courses are included within access rights. However, I am satisfied that the bill already provides for such courses. The right to be on land for recreational purposes must include being on land when being instructed in such activities as hillcraft and map reading. Similarly, a scout leader or other voluntary group leader who provides such instruction would come within access rights. If the instructor was paid for his or her services, he or she would be within access rights by virtue of section 1(2A), which was inserted at stage 2. Accordingly, amendments 66A and 66C are unnecessary and I hope that they will not be moved.

Amendment 66B appears to intend to bring within access rights people who carry out activities to enable or assist other people who are not with them to further their understanding of natural or cultural heritage. I am not clear that the proposed alternative wording would make any real difference to the scope of the provisions, but nevertheless I am content to accept amendment 66B.

Amendment 66D would remove paragraph (b) of the definition in amendment 66, which would require that relevant educational activities are

"not carried on for the purposes of deriving a profit directly attributable to the carrying on of the activity."

I am satisfied that activities carried on for profit will be covered by section 1(2A), but I am happy to accept amendment 66D if it clarifies the situation.

Amendments 177 and 178, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, seek to extend access rights to artistic and scientific activities that are not intended to yield a profit. I am not clear which such artistic activities would not be considered to be recreational and therefore already included within access rights. Similarly, amateur naturalists, ornithologists and the like would already fall within the access rights in the bill as it stands. I assume that the intention may be to provide that staff of conservation organisations or other bodies, such as Scottish Natural Heritage, should have a right to access land for the purposes of, say, survey work. In my view, that would not be appropriate. SNH's powers of entry to land are set down in statute. We are satisfied that those powers provide SNH with the means of carrying out its duties and that a general right of access for such a body to enter any land at any time would not be appropriate and I can see no reason why other organisations should have greater access to someone's land than official bodies such as SNH. I hope that amendments 177 and 178 will not be moved.

Amendment 63 addresses concerns that were raised at stage 2, when we lodged amendments to bring within access rights such people as mountain guides. The principal amendment was the insertion of section 1(2A). However, concerns remained that commercial activities such as professional photography would continue to be excluded from access rights and we agreed to look at that issue again at stage 3. We have decided against a specific provision to include professional photographers and artists within access rights. Instead, amendment 63 adopts the same approach as an amendment that was lodged by Rhona Brankin at stage 2. Amendment 63 would bring within access rights all those commercial activities that could also be carried on non-commercially. I accept that that is a fairly wide provision, but I hope that such activities will be subject to the general requirement that they are conducted responsibly and in line with guidance provided in the access code. Amendment 167 is consequential on Executive amendment 63.

I move amendment 61.

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

If amendment 167 is agreed to, amendment 178 will be pre-empted.

Photo of Roseanna Cunningham Roseanna Cunningham Scottish National Party

The SNP intends to vote for the Executive amendments in the group, but we think that some aspects need to be clarified. Amendment 177 was lodged because, if amendments 61 and 62 are agreed to, the public will have a right of access to private land for recreational, educational and some commercial purposes, but—arguably—not for scientific or artistic purposes.

The minister asked for examples of what we were talking about. Under the scientific heading might fall scientific work that is undertaken by several non-governmental organisations and which cannot be regarded as educational, recreational or commercial. For example, such work could include an NGO monitoring animal migration or the occurrence of pollutants in a river or soil.

As for artistic purposes, the question is arguable, but would all artistic work fall within the three categories of educational, recreational or commercial activity? I know that that debate cannot really be held in the context of land reform, but I assume that we all accept that an argument exists over art for art's sake, not primarily for any other purpose. If George Wylie were to decide to float another paper boat down the Clyde, would that be a recreational, commercial or educational activity? I am not sure. That is what we are considering and I am interested in the minister's response.

I intend to support Dennis Canavan's amendment 66A, which is part of the argument about extending clarification, particularly on educational visits. Amendment 66A would rectify weaknesses in the Executive's amendment 66, which deals with educational visits. Many such visits are not solely for the purpose of understanding natural or cultural heritage. They may be aimed at educating the public in the practice of skills that are required for various activities that have been mentioned, such as hillwalking and horse-riding, or in how to exercise access rights responsibly and safely. I assume that we all hope that such courses can take place.

A school might organise a Duke of Edinburgh's award trip to the outdoors to practise navigation. Such activities must remain within access rights; otherwise, landowners might try to restrict them or to argue that they do not fall within the categories in the bill. Failure to expand access rights in such a way might make it difficult to educate the public about responsible or safe exercise of access rights.

The comments that I made about amendment 66A also apply to Dennis Canavan's amendment 66C. My amendment 178 is consequential on amendment 177.

I have asked the minister for further clarification. We are trying to make it clear in the bill which activities are excluded and which are not.

Photo of Dennis Canavan Dennis Canavan Independent

I support Executive amendment 62, which would include educational activities in the activities for which access rights may be exercised. Executive amendment 66 attempts to define educational activity, but it is too restrictive, as it confines a "relevant educational activity" to one that has the aim of furthering someone's

"understanding of natural or cultural heritage".

I lodged amendments 66A and 66C because of that restrictive definition.

We can all think of examples of educational visits and excursions that would not be made solely for the purposes of understanding natural or cultural heritage but that are nevertheless educational visits or excursions. They may be aimed at educating the public about the practice of skills that are required for activities such as hillwalking, cycling, canoeing or horse-riding that are within access rights, or about the responsible and safe exercising of those access rights. They should all be included in the bill, as they are all legitimate educational activities.

A school might organise an excursion to practise navigation, for example. Surely such excursions must remain within access rights; if not, landowners might try to restrict them. Further, failure to expand access rights in such a way might make it very difficult to educate the public about how to exercise them responsibly. Education on safe and responsible access has always been one of the central planks of the discussions that have taken place on access. In particular, education on how to exercise access rights responsibly should help to allay the concerns of landowners.

I listened carefully to what the minister said and I do not agree with his statement that my amendments 66A and 66C are unnecessary. If the Executive deems it necessary to spell out a specific reference to an understanding of natural or cultural heritage, surely the bill should also include an explicit reference to educating people on—or helping to promote an understanding of—the exercise of any activity that is within the access rights that are provided for. My fear is that, without such a specific reference, some landowners might seek to bring legal challenges against certain educational excursions. The specific references that are included in my amendments 66A and 66C are not only desirable but necessary.

Photo of Murdo Fraser Murdo Fraser Conservative 3:15 pm, 22nd January 2003

The issue of commercial access is the one on which there is the prospect of controversy. I think that the principle that people should be allowed to come on to the land and exercise access is accepted by all sides of the debate—by landowners and farmers as well as by those taking up access rights. The principle is reasonable in the case of mountain guides, for example. However, we should not have situations in which people access land to derive profit from it by, for example, holding events or setting up stalls.

In general, the Conservatives welcome the amendments in the grouping because we think that they make sense. I have concerns about one of them, however, which I put to the minister for his response. I am concerned about amendment 63 and in particular how it would work in practice.

Amendment 63 seeks to include the words:

"which the person exercising the right could carry on otherwise than commercially or for profit".

I will give two examples that illustrate my concerns.

The first example is of someone who comes on to land and starts to peddle hamburgers. If they said that they were giving away the hamburgers, not selling them for profit, would that activity be excluded from access rights?

Secondly, it would be possible to hold a rave on someone's land and not charge people admission and yet the people organising the rave could be doing so for profit. Would amendment 63 allow raves to be held without the landowner's permission if people were to derive their profit other than by charging admission? Those points require clarification and I would welcome any comments that the minister may make on amendment 63.

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

Four other members have asked to speak. I warn the chamber that we are running a wee bit tight for time. We have another group of amendments to deal with before the guillotine comes down at 10 minutes to 4. I ask members who are to speak to show brevity, please.

Photo of Pauline McNeill Pauline McNeill Labour

This group of amendments is important, not least because of the number of representations that many back benchers across the parties have made on this aspect of the bill.

Members should note that there will be an access code that will ensure that guidance is given on the meaning of the provisions. Distinguishing those activities that would benefit from statutory access rights, which will be exercised individually or collectively, was the subject of a lot of discussion between the Justice 2 Committee and the Executive. Many other back benchers were also interested in the debate.

In our attempt to formulate our view on that distinction, the committee often referred to it as the "T in the Park distinction". We meant that activities should be allowed to proceed as they do at present: ordinary activities, such as school trips, would be unaffected but landowners would make the normal arrangements for big events, including pop concerts such as T in the Park.

We have done well to achieve all that we have achieved to date. The Executive has also done well—I know that amendment 66 was drafted and redrafted. We are trying to achieve something that is no more or less than what existed previously, and we want to preserve the status quo, as we understand it, so that landowners are able to take advantage of the arrangements that I outlined. On Dennis Canavan's points, the bill, if passed, would make no difference to schools and whether they will be able to take advantage of trips to the countryside.

Amendment 86 is a minor amendment that relates to golf courses. During our consideration of the bill, there was much discussion of golf courses, and I think that we have reached a sensible position on the issue. There is no general right of access to golf courses, except to cross over them. However, some MSPs have received representations from people who have made use of golf courses during the sledging season. Notwithstanding the fact that Allan Wilson is the minister with responsibility for global warming and that people may not be able to enjoy sledging for much longer, I ask him to confirm that, where local agreements exist for people to take part in that activity, it will be unaffected, although such arrangements are not prescribed in the bill.

Photo of Duncan Hamilton Duncan Hamilton Scottish National Party

I shall be brief. I ask the minister to answer two specific questions in his summing up.

I support the Executive's amendments and I particularly welcome the minister's support for amendment 66B. However, will he reflect on some of the examples that have been given in the debate, such as scientific activities, activities under the Duke of Edinburgh's award, or activities by NGOs that seek access to land for pollution control? In order to allow members to make an informed decision about his interpretation of the bill, I ask him to outline for the Parliament which of the examples that have been mentioned would not be included or whether they would all be included.

Further, will the minister clarify his interpretation of amendment 66? I do not seek to tell him his job; however, he might argue that where the bill defines a "relevant educational activity" as that

"which is carried on by a person for the purposes of" a certain activity, that activity must be the sole or main purpose of access. On the other hand, perhaps he means that such an activity might be a by-product of access and one of several reasons for, or an intended or unintended result of, that access. If he intends that wider definition, the minister might have a case. However, if the activity must be the sole or main purpose of access, his definition might be more restrictive, which would probably mean that we would have to support the amendments to amendment 66.

Photo of George Lyon George Lyon Liberal Democrat

Members received the maximum correspondence from constituents who were concerned about the impact of commercial access. We need to find the right balance between the genuine needs of mountain guides or the staff of outdoor centres who accrue some commercial benefit from escorting clients on hillwalking expeditions to the countryside, and the interests of landowners, who do not want themselves or their land to be financially exploited by the setting up of raves and so on without accruing any financial benefit themselves. Indeed, it is absolutely essential that we find that balance. I am interested to hear the minister's response to the examples that Murdo Fraser and other members raised and I hope that he can reassure us that the correct balance has been achieved in amendment 63 and the amendments that were agreed to at stage 2.

Photo of Fergus Ewing Fergus Ewing Scottish National Party

Last year, during the foot-and-mouth crisis, the sole group of people in Scotland who received no compensation but lost almost all of their income for weeks if not months included mountain guides, climbing instructors, canoe instructors and a variety of other people, most of whom work for themselves and have a modest income. Although those people lost their entire livelihood for a long period, they behaved to a person—as far as I know—with total responsibility. I am delighted that the Executive is now persuaded that those people should not be punished for their good behaviour. I welcome the minister's aim that such people can continue to play the essential role that Duncan Hamilton, George Lyon and others have described. The question is whether, technically, the minister's aim is being achieved.

If mountain guides, climbing instructors, canoe instructors, dry-stane dyke instructors and others—all of whom must have access to the outdoors to earn their modest livelihoods—are to be protected by the amendments, that is fine. However, I understood that the minister's argument was, "Well, if the amendments that we are talking about today"—which we agree with— "do not cover those people, they are covered by the fact that access can be exercised for recreational purposes." If a mountain guide takes a class to Ben Nevis, the class is there for recreational purposes, but the mountain guide is not. He or she is not there to make a lot of money, but because he or she needs to get money to survive and to continue doing what he or she wants to do. That is a possible loophole. I hope that I am wrong and that the minister will address my point in his closing remarks.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

I will be as quick as I can.

I will deal first with Fergus Ewing's last point. We are absolutely clear about the general right of access. It was the clear wish of the committee that guides of any shape, size or description be covered by the bill. Amendment 66 tries to extend the definition to deal with concerns about educational interests.

Duncan Hamilton is right. In response to his point, I can tell him that I am clear that we are seeking to achieve a wider definition. The difficulty is that, when one starts to draft such an amendment and to clarify the provision, one runs the risk of narrowing the definition. I accept the point, but I invite Mr Hamilton to read the section as a whole and as amended. If he did so, he would see that it covers both Fergus Ewing's point about general intent and the question of extending that definition, and that it deals with those two points. With that, I hope that I have addressed other concerns.

I will deal with Murdo Fraser's point before I respond to George Lyon, but first I will respond to Pauline McNeill, who is a well-known sledger. I say to her that agreements that are already in existence or that might be agreed with an individual can continue. The bill makes no provision to override such local agreements.

I turn to the substantive points on Roseanna Cunningham's amendments 177 and 178 and Dennis Canavan's amendment 66C. Members raised other concerns with me, but if those activities—particularly the example given by Roseanna Cunningham—are not being carried out for the purpose of making a profit, they fall into another category, which is a different issue. That is why I draw the distinction between a general right of access and allowing those who are not pursuing activities for profit to continue to have the extended access rights described in section 1.

I had a little difficulty with Murdo Fraser's new concept of a commercial activity that involves giving away hamburgers. I have not quite got my mind round that concept.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

No, under no circumstances will I take an intervention. Bill Aitken might want to reflect on what Murdo Fraser said—perhaps we will get free hamburgers when we leave the chamber.

I ask Murdo Fraser to look at the much broader definition of profit that the bill provides. There will always be clever people who think up clever ways—they tend to be lawyers, I am bound to say—to obviate a provision in any piece of legislation. Let me be serious. The existing provisions make it clear that people who have absolute rights, whose activities do not exploit the land and who are not seeking to make a profit will have their rights extended by amendment 66 and further extended by the other amendments that we have lodged. That seems the correct approach, whereas people who are engaged in specific commercial activity should seek access rights in the normal way.

Amendment 61 agreed to.

[Amendment 177 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].]

Members:

No.

Division number 2

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnstone, Alex, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McGugan, Irene, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeod, Fiona, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Reid, Mr George, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Scanlon, Mary, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, 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, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, 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, John Farquhar, 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, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

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

The result of the division is: For 53, Against 70, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 177 disagreed to.

Amendment 62 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 63 moved—[Ross Finnie].

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

The question is, that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 3

For: Adam, Brian, Alexander, Ms Wendy, 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, Eadie, Helen, 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, Reid, Mr George, 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, 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
Against: 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, Monteith, Mr Brian, Mundell, David, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Ben, Young, John

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

The result of the division is: For 105, Against 18, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 63 agreed to.

Amendments 64 and 65 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 66 moved—[Ross Finnie].

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

The question is, that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Photo of Stewart Stevenson Stewart Stevenson Scottish National Party

On a point of order. There are amendments to amendment 66.

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

Yes, I know that. I should not have put the question on amendment 66. It has been moved formally, so the next thing that happens is that Dennis Canavan will formally move amendment 66A.

Amendment 66A moved—[Dennis Canavan].

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

The question is, that amendment 66A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 4

For: Adam, Brian, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, 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, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Reid, Mr George, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Ullrich, Kay, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, 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, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Goldie, Miss Annabel, 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, McLeish, Henry, 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, Young, John

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

The result of the division is: For 36, Against 88, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 66A disagreed to.

Amendment 66B moved—[Stewart Stevenson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 66C moved—[Dennis Canavan].

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

The question is, that amendment 66C be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 5

For: Adam, Brian, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, 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, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Reid, Mr George, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Ullrich, Kay, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, 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, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Goldie, Miss Annabel, 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, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, 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, Young, John

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

The result of the division is: For 36, Against 87, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 66C disagreed to.

Amendment 66D moved—[Stewart Stevenson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 66, as amended, agreed to.