Amendment 71 is grouped with amendments 72, 73 and 100 to 107.

I will start with amendments 71 to 73. It was unfortunate that the power to enable police authorities to contract out the provision of certain services, mainly in police stations, was removed by amendment at stage 2. The order of stage 2 business meant that we did not have the opportunity to demonstrate that we had accepted members' concerns about the impact of our proposals in court premises and that we would have supported an amendment to remove the power to contract out in relation to the provision of police custody and security officer functions in court premises.

As a result, the bill as it now stands precludes contracting out completely. It would be unfortunate if we left it that way. In particular, we would be ignoring the recommendations made by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and representations from chief constables.

Although we accept that there is a case against contracting out court functions that are undertaken by the police service, I have heard no strong arguments against giving police authorities the option to contract out turnkey and escorting duties. We have never said that police authorities must contract out anything. However, as responsible bodies with budgets that will exceed £900 million next year and a duty to deliver best value, they must at least be given the tools to do the job. Amendments 71 to 73 will provide a balanced and reasonable position on contracting out PCSO services.

Amendments 71 and 72 will restore the power of police authorities to contract out the provision of PCSO services, but amendment 73 will rule out the use of PCSOs—other than those employed by a police force—in court premises. As a result, only PCSOs employed directly by the police authority could fulfil the duties and provide PCSO services in and around court buildings. I firmly believe that the amendments will achieve our aims of effective service delivery and best use of resources without compromising safety and court order.

Amendments 100 to 103 relate to the training to be provided to PCSOs. Throughout consideration of section 61, we have made it clear that PCSOs will be fully and professionally trained to deal with the circumstances in which they will be operating. Jim Wallace set out the position in a letter to the convener of the Justice 2 Committee on 3 December. In a letter to the committee on 9 December, the honourable secretary of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the chief constable of Strathclyde police subsequently confirmed that appropriate job-specific training would be provided to PCSOs.

The Scottish police service already operates to very high standards. The police have given assurances that the high professional standards that apply in training for police duties generally will apply equally to PCSO services. I believe that that is satisfactory. I also strongly resist any measure to regulate for the level and standards of training carried out by police forces. That is an operational matter for chief constables and should remain so. It would be wholly inappropriate to make an exception for PCSOs. The tripartite basis on which policing in Scotland operates sets out clear roles for Scottish ministers, for police authorities and for chief constables. It would be wrong for the Parliament to consider legislation that cuts across that long-standing position.

Amendment 104 relates to contractual arrangements with third parties for PCSO services. The police already have arrangements to ensure that appropriate contract monitoring takes place for services provided by third parties. From 1 April 2003, every local authority, including police authorities, will have a duty under the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 to secure best value for the functions that they discharge. The new duty requires the authority to maintain an appropriate balance between the quality of the performance of its functions and the cost to the authority of that performance. It is for chief constables and others within the police authority to ensure that those requirements are met.

That will include arrangements with a third-party provider on the handling of complaints and disciplinary matters. As a result, any police authority that seeks to secure PCSO services from a third party should have robust contract compliance and monitoring arrangements in place to ensure a high-quality, professional standard of service and to represent best value for public expenditure. I therefore see no good reason to require third parties to provide reports to ministers or the Parliament on what is rightly the responsibility of the police.

Amendments 105 and 106 relate to the duties of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. With regard to amendment 105, HMIC already has a duty, if directed, to visit and inquire into any general matter concerning a police force. HMIC currently inspects all aspects of a force, including officers and support staff. It will therefore inspect the use of PCSOs as a matter of course. The law does not need to be amended to achieve the intention behind amendment 105. Amendment 105 is therefore unnecessary.

Amendment 106 is also inappropriate. The Scottish ministers have already given a firm commitment to propose measures to regulate the private security industry. The authority established to undertake that role would be the appropriate body to inspect private sector organisations involved in the provision of PCSO services. That body could in any case consult HMIC.

I assume that the intention underlying amendment 107 is to ensure that a contractor who enters into a contract with a police authority to provide PCSO services is subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Section 5 of that act already provides for the Scottish ministers to make an order in respect of relevant services provided by a person under a contract with a Scottish public authority if it is considered appropriate to make such an order. We will consider that as and when appropriate. Amendment 107 is therefore unnecessary.

I move amendment 71.

It is not the Scottish National Party's intention to support amendments 71 to 73. Those amendments seek to reverse a change that was made at stage 2 and that we believe was appropriate. The change was supported by the convener of the Justice 2 Committee, Pauline McNeill, and by the deputy convener, Bill Aitken, which shows the extent of cross-party concern about the general issue. At stage 2, Pauline McNeill and Bill Aitken both voted to ensure that PCSOs would be under the direct control of the chief constable.

The SNP is conditionally in favour of chief constables having the power to employ civilians to guard courts and to move prisoners around, if the chief constable believes that that is an appropriate use of the funds at his disposal and if it frees up police officers for other duties.

However, concerns have been raised and they must be addressed. The Scottish Police Federation was concerned that PCSOs would have to be paid for out of the police budget. That would mean that the number of police officers available for other duties would be reduced, which would give chief constables less flexibility. Furthermore, sheriffs expressed concerns about safety in courts if no police officers were present.

The proposed transfer of powers from the police to civilians is substantial and includes the right to deprive a member of the public of their liberty and to use force to do so. As has been pointed out, the police are trained carefully in the use of force and there is concern that PCSOs should be trained to the same standards. The Scottish Police Federation also questioned whether the employment of PCSOs would lead to any savings. It is important that the Parliament should have assurances from the minister on those matters, but I am not sure that what he has said so far gives those assurances.

As I said, the SNP opposes the contracting out of PCSOs. The fact that there was broad cross-party support at stage 2 shows that there is wide concern about whether that role should be privatised. If police powers to search and restrain prisoners and to keep people in custody are to be transferred to civilians, it is appropriate that there should be a sufficient guarantee of the training and proper behaviour of those civilians. Civilians who are employed directly by a chief constable are accountable to the police board and to HMIC. Private security forces are not.

I will talk briefly about our amendments 100 to 107, which deal with some of the problems of accountability in private security forces. Generally, the amendments would introduce basic standards for the training of PCSOs, require PCSOs and the companies that employ them to be open to inspection by HMIC, require the companies to report on misconduct by their officers and ensure openness by bringing the companies under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Without the guarantees, the contracting out of PCSOs is flawed. I know that the minister addressed one or two of the issues in his opening remarks and I will deal with what he said as we go through.

I am a little puzzled by amendment 73. I would be interested to hear more detail about it from the minister, because it appears to be almost contrary to the whole idea of contracting out. I am not quite sure where it fits within the general parameters of the way in which the minister is proceeding. The amendment almost suggests that there will be two categories of PCSOs—the truly contracted-out ones who will deliver the prisoner to the court building and the civilian security officers who are employed by the chief constable in the court building, presumably to take delivery of the prisoner. There now seem to be two, almost separate categories of civilian officer. That is strange, but it is certainly better that the handover at least is to people who are under the direct control of the chief constable.

Amendments 100 and 101 are about training and are fairly self-explanatory. The officers should be trained in searching—that must be clear and up front from the start. They should also be trained in the use of handcuffs and other means of restraint—that, too, should be clear and up front. I have referred to some of the concerns that were expressed on the issue at stage 2. I do not understand why the minister is so against amendments 100 and 101. I suspect that ultimately we will have a group of people involved in restraint who are not trained to the same level as the police.

Amendments 102 and 103 are also about training. I want to hear rather more from the minister than the bland assurances that he gave about the basic standards that will be required of the officers. We are moving into a situation where we will have a two and even three-tier system of security officers. Although it is important that we free up properly trained police officers to do as many of the jobs as possible that they are required to do, it is equally important that the people who are involved in control and restraint in particular are trained to the same standards.

Amendment 104 would require private providers of PCSOs to give an annual report on numbers, salaries, staff turnover, complaints against officers and disciplinary offences committed by officers. Individual police forces report on those matters in their annual reports and are scrutinised by HMIC. It is in the public interest that that information should be made available so that people know how their public services are performing. I am afraid that, with privatisation, those matters have a way of becoming secret, especially if the figures look embarrassing. One only has to examine the experience with Kilmarnock prison, where staff turnover, staff numbers, grievance procedures and bullying are all matters of secrecy. The fragmentation and privatisation of the justice system means that public accountability tends to be lost. Amendment 104 is an attempt to stem that tide.

Amendment 105 would make those PCSOs who are employed by private companies subject to inspection by HMIC. I think that I heard the minister give an assurance that that would be the case. If that assurance is repeated at the close of the debate, I will reconsider pressing amendment 105, but I seek a categoric assurance that privately employed PCSOs will be subject to inspection in the same way as the police force is.

On amendment 106, I think that I heard the minister making a commitment in respect of inspections. Once again, if I hear categoric assurances at the end of the debate, I will not press amendment 106 but, at the moment, I am not sure whether the assurance has been categoric.

I regard amendment 107 in the same way. The amendment would make private companies that employ PCSOs subject to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 as public authorities. If ministers do not wish to accept amendment 107, I will be looking for something cast iron from the minister that the Scottish ministers will use their powers under section 5 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 to designate the private providers of PCSOs as public authorities.

During the passage of the bill, we have repeatedly sought assurances that that would be done. I know that the Minister for Justice said:

"Major private sector suppliers of public services—such as those involved in Her Majesty's Prison Kilmarnock—should, arguably, be candidates for designation under the bill ... It is our intent that that provision will be used to bring within the scope of freedom of information legislation private companies that are involved in significant public work, such as private companies that are involved in major PFI contracts."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee, 5 February 2002; c 3162-64.]

I want a categoric assurance today that the PCSO companies will be made subject to the powers under section 5 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. If I get that categoric assurance, I will not press amendment 107.

This is another part of the bill that has proved problematic, with members holding differing views irrespective of party affiliations. The wishes of the Executive are perfectly understandable—it rightly seeks to free up police officers for more active duties and recognises that there is a potential cost saving in using civilians to carry out some duties that are normally carried out by police officers. However, there are a number of contrary arguments, relating to the fact that the experience down south has not been a universal success and recognising that courts are, in the normal course of events, fraught places where there is always a potential for difficulty—the suggestion that such difficulties are less likely where there is a police presence is a credible view.

From personal observation, I must comment that many of the officers who at present perform police court duties tend to be, through no fault of their own, less likely to be effective in general operational duties. There is a strong possibility that, were the Executive's provisions to be introduced on a blanket basis, many of those officers would have to be retired early on health grounds, with a consequent effect on the police pension fund and a reduction in the saving that the Executive seeks to make.

Once again, on a fine balance we are prepared to go along with the proposals. However, we feel that there is a lack of clarity in amendment 73, which we ask the minister to deal with more fully when he sums up. The determining factor for us is that, although civilianisation to such a degree will be an option open to chief constables, it will not be incumbent on them. We go along with the proposal on the clear understanding that chief constables will not be pressured by the justice department to go along the route that the bill proposes and that they can make their decisions with unfettered discretion, as opposed to under Scottish Executive influence.

On that basis, we find Roseanna Cunningham's amendments 100 to 103 to be largely too restrictive. We expect chief constables to ensure that the necessary training is given to custody officers and we see no need to legislate on that.

Conversely, we see merit in amendment 104 and related amendments 105 to 107. If the exercise is to be undertaken, it is only appropriate to have an inspection and reporting mechanism. Amendments 104 to 107 would create that. We will finalise our viewpoint after we have heard the minister's clarification, but the amendments have merit and my inclination is to support them.

It is fair to say that the Justice 2 Committee had many concerns about the provisions. Roseanna Cunningham was correct: the committee did much cross-party work to deal with those concerns. Duncan Hamilton and I spent many weeks questioning the Executive on the need for the policy, which would give chief constables the power to create, if they so wished, a different balance in our courts between police officers and a new breed of officers—police custody and security officers.

As I understand the matter, the Executive's original position was that chief constables would have the power to contract out the service, but the committee convinced the Executive that that should not happen and that any chief constables who civilianised the role of police officers to free up officers for front-line duties should do so only in so far as the civilian officers were managed by the police. I feel strongly about that. I have much faith in our police force and in its ability to train and discipline a civilian force. We will pass serious powers to PCSOs. In our courts, they will have the powers to restrain individuals and to apprehend people who cause difficulties.

It is fair to say that many people who work in our criminal courts—not least High Court judges and procurators fiscal—are concerned about getting the balance right in our courts. Some reassurances on that are due from the Executive. I accept that the number of police officers in our courts is an operational matter for chief constables to decide, but Parliament expects that, when or if PCSOs are employed, a proper balance will be struck and a sizeable police presence will remain. In Glasgow sheriff court, for example, a police presence is needed to deal with criminals and other people.

At stage 2, the Justice 2 Committee said that it would be concerned about further contracting out. Before we go any further, we must be clear that the Executive's amendments will not put out to tender the role of police custody and security officers; the PCSOs will form a civilian force. However, I would still like assurances about our expectations of our chief constables to ensure that the right balance is struck. Training must be considered at a future date, so that we are satisfied that the powers are correct.

It is reasonable for the Parliament to seek assurances before we close the matter. If the objective is to free up police officers for the front line, the Parliament will expect to see the evidence that those officers are serving on the front line, because that is the policy objective. It would be useful if the Executive gave us some idea of where we will end up if its amendments are agreed to.

As Pauline McNeill said, the Justice 2 Committee was concerned about the possibility that no police officers would be on duty in our courts. The concern was that, if the bill as introduced was passed, security in courts would be put at risk. It was interesting to note the evidence to the committee from the Scottish Police Federation, which said that officers who were allocated to court duty might be unfit for front-line duties. That rather undermined the argument that the changeover to contracting out would reduce security in court.

At stage 2, the committee reached consensus, although there was some confusion about what was being voted on. Executive amendments 71 to 73 allay the fundamental concern, which was about security in our courthouses, so I support them. However, like Pauline McNeill, I realise that discretion will be given to the chief constable, who will decide how he uses the officers whom section 61 frees up. I hope that the minister will guarantee to the chamber that officers who are freed up as a result of the provision will undertake front-line policing and that more police will be on our streets. That is the purpose behind the provision, which we all support, and we would like ministers to guarantee that that will happen.

As Pauline McNeill said, several members of the Justice 2 Committee—including her and me—lodged stage 2 amendments to remove the option of contracting out. It is important that the minister should be aware that the amendment to which the committee agreed was passed unanimously. The committee took the view that, not only in courts, but in principle, it had a problem with the passing to civilians of important powers without the necessary safeguards of training or disciplinary procedures.

Amendment 73 seems to show confusion about the difference between opposition to the principle and the special exemption for the court—although we are not really talking about an exemption for the court, as it remains possible for civilians to fulfil the role, albeit in a slightly different capacity. The amendment does not allay the committee's concerns. As the Scottish Police Federation said, the one place in which we are guaranteed to have a collection of criminals and stress is the courtroom. Of all the places where we want reinforcement, surely to goodness the courtroom is where we want the advantage of trained police officers in uniform to reinforce the dignity of the court and the requirement for reasonable and respectful behaviour. That is eminently sensible.

Today, as at stage 2, the financial aspects have been mentioned. The committee could not conclude whether cost savings would be made. Neither the Executive nor any other witnesses assured us that savings would be made. When the Scottish Police Federation was asked about that, it said:

"When the expected salaries for the post, training costs, equipment and the loss of flexibility currently offered by police officers are considered, it is questionable if the introduction of such a scheme would stand financial scrutiny in terms of best value."

Does the Executive oppose Roseanna Cunningham's amendments, which would provide for that training, because it wants to cut costs rather than to provide the best service? If so, that is truly lamentable.

I acknowledge that the Executive has moved some way towards the Justice 2 Committee's viewpoint, but I ask it to reconsider, even at this late stage, the principle of civilians taking on duties that should properly be undertaken by police officers or at least by those who are under the chief constable's direction. The courts—and the ancillary duties of taking people to and from court—are a matter of profound public concern. Even now, the minister should reconsider the idea that a civilian in court would pass someone to a contracted-out civilian employee. If an attempt was made to break free, there might be confusion over who had the power of arrest and over what would happen if a public complaint was made about disciplinary procedures.

We must get through groups 22 and 23 by 10.12 am, so I give my regrets to Mr Fitzpatrick and Mr McAllion, whom I cannot call to speak.

I will briefly deal with some of the points that have been made. Concerns have been expressed about financial issues. Roseanna Cunningham and George Lyon spoke about potential budget savings. Roseanna Cunningham asked whether, if money was removed from the police budget, the number of police constables would be reduced and, conversely, George Lyon asked for an assurance that any money that was saved would release police constables for the front line.

Chief constables will be allowed to use their resources most appropriately to get the best value from them and to improve the service that they provide and the wider public's confidence and security. Our proposals are not about reducing the number of police officers by using civilians. Equally, it would be wrong for ministers or the Parliament to try to say how the chief constables should use their budgets. That is an operational matter for the chief constables. However, the chief constables have told us clearly that, if they have the discretion to use civilians where that is appropriate, they will be able to free up resources to improve services at the front line.

Jim Wallace's letter of December 2002 to Pauline McNeill, the convener of the Justice 2 Committee, cites the example of Lothian and Borders police. Currently, some 40 police officers are deployed routinely to Edinburgh High Court and to Edinburgh sheriff court. Lothian and Borders police believe that those courts could be policed by a mixture of officers and PCSOs with the appropriate powers. The chief constable of Lothian and Borders police believes that, if PCSOs were to be used, 30 court custody officers could be employed, releasing five officers to front-line duties. In other words, Lothian and Borders police would make an operational decision to put more police officers on front-line duties as a result of the provisions.

I ask for clarification, as there might be confusion about the powers that the bill will give. Am I right in saying that the chief constables will have the power to civilianise the role of the police custody officers in the courts if they want to do so but that they will not be able to contract it out?

Absolutely. Although Roseanna Cunningham clarified her comments, her initial remarks created some confusion. Amendment 71 will ensure that those who are employed in the courts—if chief constables choose to employ civilians—will be employed by the police. The work will not be contracted out.

I recognise the advantages of employing civilian officers in the mustering of witnesses and the like. That job could easily be done by a civilian. However, does the minister agree that there is a proper solemnity that attaches to the proceedings in our courts, especially in the sheriff courts and the High Court? Furthermore, despite the improvements that have been made in court design, there are still substantial issues about the safety of witnesses, prosecutors, judges and sheriffs. Will ministers make it clear to chief constables that, in achieving the balance that is expected, those aspects must be properly taken into account?

The issues of security and solemnity, along with other matters in the courts, will be taken seriously. Again, that will come down to operational decisions that are made by the chief constables. I have heard nothing to suggest that chief constables would do anything other than ensure the highest level of security in the courts.

I am aware of the time pressure, but I will quickly address some of the other questions that have been raised. I hope that I have made it clear that there will be no contracting out of security services in courts. Beyond the courts, chief constables will be able to contract out certain duties. That will not be mandatory, but it can be done if they believe that it is appropriate. The training of officers is a matter for the police; the civilians will be inspected by HMIC. Finally, a question was raised concerning the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. As I have said, that act will apply and will be used under the direction of ministers when we believe that that is necessary. I give that assurance.

The question is, that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 1

For: 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, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, Johnstone, Alex, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAveety, Mr Frank, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Mundell, David, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: 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, Hyslop, Fiona, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, Morgan, Alasdair, Paterson, Mr Gil, Robison, Shona, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
Abstentions: McAllion, Mr John, Smith, Elaine

The result of the division is: For 66, Against 27, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 71 agreed to.

Amendment 72 moved—[Hugh Henry].

The question is, that amendment 72 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 2

For: 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, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, Johnstone, Alex, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Mundell, David, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: 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, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, Morgan, Alasdair, Paterson, Mr Gil, Robison, Shona, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra
Abstentions: McAllion, Mr John, Smith, Elaine

The result of the division is: For 67, Against 27, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 72 agreed to.

Amendment 73 moved—[Hugh Henry]—and agreed to.

Amendment 101 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].

The question is, that amendment 101 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 3

For: Adam, Brian, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Cunningham, Roseanna, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, Morgan, Alasdair, Paterson, Mr Gil, Robison, Shona, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra
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, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, Johnstone, Alex, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Mundell, David, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: McAllion, Mr John, Smith, Elaine

The result of the division is: For 27, Against 67, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 101 disagreed to.

Amendment 100 not moved.

Amendment 102 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].

The question is, that amendment 102 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 4

For: Adam, Brian, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, Morgan, Alasdair, Paterson, Mr Gil, Robison, Shona, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra
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, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, Johnstone, Alex, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Mundell, David, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: McAllion, Mr John, Smith, Elaine

The result of the division is: For 25, Against 67, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 102 disagreed to.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. If there are to be more divisions on this group of amendments, can we have them all at once to save time?

That would be difficult, because I expect Miss Cunningham to move some amendments but not to move others. We will press on and try to get to your amendment 74 as quickly as possible. However, we are almost out of time.

Amendment 103 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].

The question is, that amendment 103 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

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, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, Morgan, Alasdair, Paterson, Mr Gil, Robison, Shona, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, Johnstone, Alex, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Mundell, David, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: McAllion, Mr John, Smith, Elaine

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 68, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 103 disagreed to.

Amendment 104 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].

The question is, that amendment 104 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 6

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, Fraser, Murdo, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnstone, Alex, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Paterson, Mr Gil, Robison, Shona, Scanlon, Mary, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Mr Murray, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McLeish, Henry, McLeod, Fiona, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: McAllion, Mr John, Smith, Elaine

The result of the division is: For 36, Against 61, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 104 disagreed to.

Amendments 105 to 107 not moved.