Before section 12

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 9:45 am on 23rd January 2003.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party 9:45 am, 23rd January 2003

Amendment 92 is grouped with amendments 92A, 92B, 92C, 92F, 92G, 92H, 92I, 92J, 188, 44, 172 and 173. If amendment 92G is agreed to, amendment 92H will become an amendment to leave out "two years" and insert "one year". The same will apply to amendment 92J, if amendment 92I is agreed to.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

We lodged a number of amendments at stage 2 to what was section 11, all of which were agreed to. However, the Justice 2 Committee then voted narrowly to remove section 11. I am still convinced that there is a need to provide in the bill a procedure that will enable local authorities to exclude land from access rights. SNH and the access forum have argued that access should be arranged locally. We agree with that completely, which is why the bill places a duty on local authorities to uphold access rights. It is entirely consistent with that approach that local authorities should have powers to exclude areas of land from access where local public interest dictates that to do so is necessary. That is why we lodged amendment 92.

It might be helpful for members who have not been closely involved with the bill if I outline some of the circumstances in which such powers might be used. Those circumstances fall into two categories—exclusions of land from access rights for a few days and relatively long exclusions.

The bill establishes rights of access to all land, except land that is specifically excluded by section 6. That means that a new charge cannot be levied for entry to land. As a consequence of that, where an event is held on land over which access rights may be exercised, there is no means of enforcing a charge for entry to that event. That would mean that no fee could be charged for entry to a village or agricultural show that is held in a local field, and that spectators could not be charged at numerous sporting events, such as athletics or autocross meetings and hill climbs. It is not our intention to threaten the viability of such events by preventing charging. At some sporting events there could be other issues, such as security, and there might be a need to restrict access. I hope that members will reflect on that and recognise the distinction that we are trying to draw.

We need a straightforward procedure for taking land out of access rights for short periods, primarily to allow charging of visitors to events. Local authorities have powers to close particular roads by order; for example, for processions or Hogmanay celebrations. Those arrangements work well, and we propose something similar in respect of access rights.

The second category of longer exclusions could again be in relation to entry charges. We have received representations from the National Trust for Scotland and others following the deletion of section 11. They are concerned that there is now no mechanism in the bill that will allow the introduction of entry charges where there has been no charge in the past. It could, for example, undermine the trust's ability to agree to take on a new property if there is no facility for charging visitors in order to offset the upkeep costs of the property.

Historic Scotland has similar concerns. If a new archaeological site was opened up, it could become an important local visitor attraction, but if there is no means of excluding the site from access rights in order to allow visitors to be charged, the site might simply have to be filled in again. That would be wrong, and I suspect that it was not what the committee had in mind when it deleted section 11.

The procedures that we have set down are onerous and I cannot see any local authority embarking on them lightly. Nevertheless, I consider it to be important that such powers are available to local authorities. We have discussed the matter with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and although some local authorities were initially not convinced of the need for the powers, COSLA has now indicated its support for what we propose.

The powers that are proposed in amendment 92 differ significantly and in several ways from those that were in the bill previously. First, although section 11 would have allowed local authorities to exclude by order particular conduct from access rights, I do not consider that such a power is necessary and amendment 92 will not provide such a power. Secondly, all orders that would have effect for six or more days would have to be confirmed by ministers. That will be considerably more onerous than the previous requirement that there be ministerial confirmation only of orders that would have effect for 30 or more days. Thirdly, local authorities will be required to review and, if necessary, remake any order not later than five years from its date of coming into force. Local authorities will be required to give public notice of the intended purpose and effect of any proposed order and to invite objections.

Amendments 172 and 173 are consequential on amendment 92.

Amendment 92A would require the order to specify the particular purpose for which the land was to be excluded from access rights. Subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new section would require the local authority to give public notice of the intended purpose and effect of an order. Having given consideration to it, we are happy to accept amendment 92A.

Amendment 92B would remove from subsection (1) of the proposed new section the clarification in brackets concerning the terms in which an order might describe the times during which land is excluded from access rights. We agree that the power should not be exercisable by reference to the "hours of darkness"—there was some confusion about the wording of amendment 92—therefore, I am willing to accept amendment 92B.

I assume that amendment 92C is intended to ensure that any order has effect only for the minimum time that is necessary to achieve its purpose. We consider that amendment to be unnecessary, given the detailed provisions that relate to the making of an order, including consultation and ministerial confirmation.

Amendment 92F seeks to prevent the making of an order contrary to the general principles of the act. Any such order would, in any case, be ultra vires; therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment 92G calls for an order to be reviewed and, if necessary, remade every two years rather than every five years, as is currently stated in the new section that is proposed by amendment 92. We think that there is merit in that proposal. There is an issue about orders' being reconsidered, notwithstanding the necessary consultation and ministerial confirmation. I expect that very few orders will be made that will last for any great length of time. Nevertheless, I am willing to accept amendment 92G, which would reduce the review period from five years to two years.

Amendments 92H and 92J propose powers for the remaking of orders every year. We consider that to be an unreasonable provision because it would mean that an order would barely be in operation before a local authority had to consult on remaking it. We accept the two-year provision, but to reduce that to one year would be less necessary than the original proposal for renewal after five years. Therefore, I reject amendments 92H and 92J.

Amendment 188 would mean that byelaws would have the effect of excluding an area of land from access rights. As we said at stage 2 when we discussed a similar amendment, it might be appropriate for a local authority to do that in certain circumstances as part of the overall management of an area. It seems to us that management measures that were introduced by byelaws would require exclusion powers, and that the checks that will be available will ensure that local authorities cannot without good reason exclude land from access rights. That power will exist. Therefore, I ask Roseanna Cunningham not to move amendment 188.

Amendment 44 would give landowners the power to suspend access rights where the exercise of access rights would interfere with any lawful activity by, or authorised by, a landowner, or where an activity is likely to constitute a danger to any person exercising access rights. The consultation draft of the bill that was published in February last year included a provision that would allow landowners to suspend access rights. Those provisions attracted considerable criticism and similar moves to reintroduce such a provision at stage 2 were resoundingly rejected. We said at stage 2 that reasonable, responsible exercise of access rights means that landowners can continue to manage land without interference. That will be backed up by guidance in the Scottish outdoor access code. Therefore, I deem amendment 44 to be unnecessary.

Amendment 92 will provide the necessary powers for a local authority to exempt particular land from access rights for a specified period—for example, for a village show or other event. On safety, land managers have responsibilities under health and safety legislation. They will still be required to comply with that legislation, but that does not require a power to suspend access rights—we have been over this ground before in committee. The arguments in favour of the provision have been rejected and I hope that Bill Aitken will agree not to move amendment 44.

I move amendment 92.

Photo of Pauline McNeill Pauline McNeill Labour 10:00 am, 23rd January 2003

In my view, our approach to the extent of local authority powers is critical to the operation of the bill. As the minister pointed out, concerns were expressed at stage 2 to the extent that the Justice 2 Committee decided to remove section 11 as an indication of how concerned it was about the extent of local authority powers. I accept that the new section that is proposed by amendment 92 is a revised one—we see that particularly in respect of the requirement for ministerial authority for an order being needed for an order that would last 6 or more days, rather than one that would last 30 or more days.

Many members reported their experiences during the foot-and-mouth crisis, when some landowners closed down huge areas of land, which was in contravention of the general rule. That situation will continue if we do not ensure that the powers that we give local authorities are not too wide. I am pleased by the Executive's acceptance of amendment 92A and other amendments—COSLA also supports those amendments. Unlike in respect of ministerial powers, there is little opportunity for the Parliament to re-examine the powers that we will give local authorities under the proposed new section, which it is why it is crucial that we get it right.

I also support amendment 92B, which is in the name of Dennis Canavan. The Justice 2 Committee believed at stages 1 and 2 that the mention of "hours of darkness" had to be removed from the bill because the relation between wildlife crime and people's being in the countryside during the hours of darkness can be dealt with under our criminal law. The idea that we should normally be suspicious of people who are out on our moors or hills after dark is ludicrous. Amendment 92B is welcome.

I ask the minister to give one commitment in his summing up: if we give the new section 11 powers to local authorities and they abuse those powers, ministers will use the powers that we gave them yesterday to regulate and change section 11, if necessary.

Photo of Dennis Canavan Dennis Canavan Independent

I thank the minister for agreeing to my amendment 92B. Without it, Executive amendment 92 would have encouraged local authorities to impose what would, in effect, be countryside curfews—indeed, some local authorities might have come under pressure from landowners to impose such curfews during the hours of darkness. Some landowners seem to assume that people who walk in the countryside during the hours of darkness are up to no good and are all poachers or thieves. However, it could be argued that people walking innocently in the countryside during the hours of darkness or daylight can act as a deterrent to poachers and people who are intent on committing—[ Laughter. ] The Tories laugh, but I inform them that there is evidence from the rambling community that, during the recent foot-and-mouth outbreak, when walkers obeyed the advice not to go into the countryside, there was an increase in wildlife crime because some so-called estate managers had the place all to themselves and were up to no good because they could go about unobserved.

Many legitimate activities are undertaken during the hours of darkness in the countryside. Many young people go on Outward Bound Trust courses that involve overnight camping, for example, and many mountaineers and hill walkers camp out on the hills. Such activities should be encouraged and I am pleased that the minister has seen the sense in amendment 92B. I am pleased that the amendment is supported by people such as the Ramblers Association, the Mountaineering Council of Scotland and Pauline McNeill, the convener of the Justice 2 Committee. Furthermore—believe it or not—Lord Larry Whitty, the former general secretary of the Labour Party, successfully moved a similar amendment when similar legislation was being dealt with in the House of Lords. I hope, therefore, that I can rely on the support of all Labour members for this reasonable amendment.

Photo of Roseanna Cunningham Roseanna Cunningham Scottish National Party

I am glad that the minister has accepted some of the amendments. The reduction of the review period from five to two years will improve the proposed new section, although we do not believe that it fixes the situation. If amendment 92 is passed—the SNP is opposed to the amendment in its entirety—we would prefer the review period to be reduced to one year. The argument that the minister used does not hold up; after all, some of the establishments to which he referred must apply annually for drinks licences. They cannot guarantee that they can sell alcohol to their customers from one year to the next, so I do not see why the situation with regard to access should be any different.

Amendment 188 deals with the general power for local authorities to make byelaws that will exclude land from access rights. At present, a circularity seems to have crept into the legislation. The situation is complicated. Sections 6(1)(k) and 12(1)(b) refer to each other and appear to give local authorities a general power to make byelaws that will exclude land from access rights beyond the powers to regulate access in section 12(1)(a) and the powers to prohibit access for various purposes in section 12(1)(c). Section 12(1) will grant the power to local authorities to make byelaws. There are three subsections, each with separate powers. Section 12(1)(a) will allow authorities to make byelaws that will provide for

"the responsible exercise of access rights" and

"the responsible use, management and conduct of the ownership of the land".

Section 12(1)(c) will allow authorities to make byelaws for

"the preservation of public order and safety ... the prevention of damage ... the prevention of nuisance or danger" and

"the conservation or enhancement of natural or cultural heritage."

Section 12(1)(b) will allow local authorities to make byelaws for the purposes in section 6(1)(k), but section 6(1)(k) allows land to be excluded from access rights by byelaws. Byelaws that are made under section 12(1)(b) are therefore not subject to the conditions in sections 12(1)(a) or 12(1)(c). That is indicated by further reference in section 12(2) to section 12(1)(c) as a separate byelaw-making power.

We therefore need clarification of what section 6(1)(k) is for, because there is a circularity that means that any land could be exempted through byelaws. Perhaps the minister will clarify that and explain why he thinks that sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) are not broad enough without further powers.

As I said, the SNP has general concerns about amendment 92. We do not believe that local authorities should be allowed to use provisions in the bill in order—in effect—to reverse the bill's intent, but that is precisely what amendment 92 will allow. We have seen plenty of examples in which local authorities make decisions that people find incomprehensible. For example, recent decisions about taking photographs at school Christmas plays indicate some of the ways in which local authorities can interpret provisions.

Amendment 92 should be agreed to, but if it is to be agreed, I would prefer that it were amended as the SNP suggests in amendments 92H and 92J.

Photo of Bill Aitken Bill Aitken Conservative 10:15 am, 23rd January 2003

As the minister said, the purpose of amendment 44 is to reinsert in the bill that which it originally contained. In this case, it can certainly be argued that first thoughts were the best.

I will explain in detail why amendment 44 will be moved, because it is a commonsense amendment. Sometimes, dangerous activities are carried out on land. Those activities could be anything from shooting to the use of explosives in civil engineering operations. It is clearly unwise to have people walking on the land during such operations and, as such, farmers should have the right to exclude access to land for the period during which such activities are undertaken.

Our other argument relates to the fact that businesses can be prejudiced by unrestricted access. We do not seek to introduce to the bill some blanket condition that would restrict access for lengthy parts of the year. The most typical example is perhaps Skibo Castle, which attracts celebrities to visit because of the privacy that it is able to afford. If that privacy is lost, celebrities such as Madonna will simply not go to Skibo Castle and income will be lost to a fairly fragile rural economy. That is surely a profound argument in favour of amendment 44.

I stress that amendment 44 is not a blocking amendment. The amendment states that any land manager would be able to suspend access rights for a maximum of four weeks only in any year. We are not being unfair.

Photo of Stewart Stevenson Stewart Stevenson Scottish National Party

Does Bill Aitken think that to be in the vicinity of explosions would constitute responsible access, which is the only kind of access that the bill provides for?

Photo of Bill Aitken Bill Aitken Conservative

That would clearly not constitute responsible access, but the fact of the matter is that people sometimes do things that, although they are not blatantly irresponsible, show a degree of neglect in the circumstances.

I will discuss briefly the rest of the amendments in the group. I am grateful to the minister for the full explanation that he gave in amplification of the reasoning behind amendment 92, which will enable us to support that amendment. We do not find Pauline McNeill's arguments on amendments 92A and 92C to be unreasonable; we can, therefore, accept those amendments, just as we can accept Mr Canavan's amendment 92B, despite his unreasonably aggressive advocacy of it.

However, we feel that Roseanna Cunningham's amendments 92H and 92J on time limitations are unreasonable and we will not support them. I underline that my understanding of the SNP's position on amendment 92 would result in the National Trust for Scotland not being able to open any new properties for which it could charge admission. That would surely have a most adverse effect on Scotland's heritage and I cannot believe that my colleagues in the SNP would seriously wish that to happen.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

We have to get through this group and the next by 10.34—we are therefore going straight to Mr Finnie's wind-up speech.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

I will respond first to Pauline McNeill's points. The ministerial order-making power as drafted does not apply to the new section 11 that will be introduced by amendment 92. However, I draw Pauline McNeill's attention to the fact that, in revising and reintroducing section 11, we have included a requirement for ministerial confirmation. Therefore, the same consideration can be given to determining whether we will, when an application has gone all the way up, be required to provide an adequate check and to explain why the power to exempt land from access rights is or is not being granted. I suggest that the new provisions will provide a very different level of check than was previously the case, and that they will give protection against the potential abuse of local authority powers.

I am grateful for Dennis Canavan's understanding of our present position, so I now move on to address Roseanna Cunningham's general point about some members' opposition to amendment 92. Other members have recognised that there are activities that simply would not take place for the purposes of developing cultural interests or otherwise. I am bound to say that there are several championship golf courses in Scotland—one of which is, I think, in Roseanna Cunningham's constituency—that would be incapable of holding such events were amendment 92 not agreed to. We have to consider the practicality of the question.

On amendment 188, if local authorities are to be responsible in the way that we suggest for local management of access, they will require amended powers to exclude specific pieces of land. That is provided for under amendment 67.

Amendment 44 would give again powers that are already in the bill. As has been mentioned both at stage 2 and at this stage, many of us were influenced by what happened during the foot-and-mouth outbreak, so I resist amendment 44.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

The minister has said that he will accept amendment 92A, so—to save time—I ask Pauline McNeill simply to confirm that she wishes to press the amendment.

Amendment 92A moved—[Pauline McNeill]—and agreed to.

Amendment 92B moved—[Dennis Canavan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 92C moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

The question is, that amendment 92C be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 6

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Grant, Rhoda, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Hyslop, Fiona, 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, Russell, Michael, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Stevenson, Stewart, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, Wallace, Ben, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Craigie, Cathie, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, 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, 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, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

The result of the division is: For 46, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 92C disagreed to.

Amendment 92F not moved.

Amendment 92G moved—[Pauline McNeill].

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

The question is, that amendment 92G be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 7

For: Adam, Brian, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Fergus, 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, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, 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, 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, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Russell, Michael, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinney, Mr John, Thomson, Elaine, Ullrich, Kay, 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

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

The result of the division is: For 92, Against 17, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 92G agreed to.

Amendment 92H not moved.

Amendment 92I moved—[Pauline McNeill].

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

The question is, that amendment 92I be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 8

For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Fergus, 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, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, 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, 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, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Russell, Michael, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinney, Mr John, Thomson, Elaine, Ullrich, Kay, 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

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

The result of the division is: For 93, Against 17, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 92I agreed to.

Amendment 92J not moved.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

The question is, that amendment 92, as amended, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 9

For: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Craigie, Cathie, 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, 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, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Hyslop, Fiona, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Russell, Michael, Stevenson, Stewart, Swinney, Mr John, Ullrich, Kay, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

The result of the division is: For 83, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 92, as amended, agreed to.