Section 13 — References to Tribunal in relation to co-ordinated support plan

Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 3:45 pm on 1st April 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Amendment 46 moved—[Euan Robson]—and agreed to.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

Group 11 is on the right to make reference to the tribunal. Amendment 80, in the name of Robert Brown, is grouped with amendments 81, 82, 47, 83 to 85, 48, 86, 49, 89, 50 and 56. If amendment 47 is agreed to, amendment 83 will be pre-empted. I call Robert Brown to move amendment 80 and to speak to all the amendments in the group.

Photo of Robert Brown Robert Brown Liberal Democrat

I will give the Parliament some background to the question of tribunals, which have been one of the important considerations in the bill. The view of the Education Committee was that there probably needed to be a move forward on the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Various different formulations were proposed by different committee members. Two amendments were agreed to, one of which is contained in section 13(3)(ba) and one of which is contained in section 14A.

Section 14A gives the Scottish ministers powers by statutory instrument to extend at a later point the jurisdiction of the tribunals. It concentrates on a number of different possibilities that might be followed once there is the light of experience to guide them. The amendment to section 13 extended the jurisdiction of the tribunal and was originally intended to go along with a sift by the president of the tribunal to restrict its jurisdiction. The concern, which is shared by ministers and members of the committee, is that we do not want to open the tribunal's jurisdiction too widely because of the effect on resources that there would be if the tribunal had to deal with a large number of cases and was sucking in resources. I share that concern. The intention of the amendment at stage 2 was to deal with that possibility by providing a mechanism for controlling the tap, as it were.

By misadventure and for various different reasons on the part of different members of the committee, the extension of the tribunal was agreed to, but the sift—the tap mechanism—was not. Therefore, we have to return to the issue, which is what amendment 80 is designed to do. It provides for a sift mechanism for the president of the tribunal, who has to be satisfied that there is "a substantial issue" arising before the matter can go forward to an appeal. There is relatively limited scope for an appeal in that context.

Therefore, in a sense, there are two possible ways forward. One mechanism is the extension of the tribunal along with the sift. I make it clear that I do not support existing section 13(3)(ba) by itself—that would not be an acceptable mechanism to me or, I am sure, to ministers or members. With the sift, it might be acceptable.

The other mechanism is the extension of powers. The advantage of that is that it would allow the committee and the minister to consider the situation once we have some experience of the operation of the tribunal and some idea of the number of cases that will come before it. My view is that the civil servants' advice to ministers has been—as always—on the cautious side and that the number of cases that go to the tribunal will be a wee bit less than what they have suggested. Nevertheless, none of us will know what the number is until the proposals have been implemented. The difficulty is that the minister has said that even if the powers are included—as they were by the committee—the Executive would not be minded to exercise them. If that remains the position, we need something more substantive in the bill.

I am anxious to hear what the ministers say in reply to what I have said, but I want there to be some extension of the provisions in the original draft of the bill, either by way of an undertaking to use the powers or by way of a movement towards extending the tribunal's jurisdiction. My decision on the matter will very much depend on the minister's response.

I hope that I have broadly explained the position. The amendments—and amendment 80 in particular—are linked in various ways to amendments that the department has proposed to take out the amendments that were successful at stage 2. Obviously, I urge members to resist those, subject to what the minister has to say.

I am grateful for the time that I have been allowed, Presiding Officer.

I move amendment 80.

Photo of Adam Ingram Adam Ingram Scottish National Party

Amendment 80, like the amendments in my name in the group, aims to extend the grounds for referral to the tribunal—that is, the additional support needs tribunal and not a co-ordinated support plan tribunal. We want a tribunal that lives up to its name and is not hide-bound by the very narrow remit that the Executive has proposed. To that end, we shall oppose the Executive's attempts in amendments 47 and 50 to strip away the stage 2 improvements that the Education Committee made. Those improvements were achieved by drawing on votes from members of all the parties that are represented on the committee.

The gains that were made included extending the right of appeal to the tribunal to children with complex or multiple needs whose support could be co-ordinated by the education authority without the involvement of other agencies, thus including autistic or dyslexic children who would otherwise not have access to the tribunal. We also successfully inserted section 14A, which provides for additional ministerial powers to extend the grounds for referral to the tribunal.

Amendments 81, 82, 84 and 86 aim to extend grounds in appropriate ways from when the bill is implemented. Amendment 84 would allow parents to appeal against failure to implement a CSP, which—bizarrely—cannot be referred to the tribunal as the bill currently stands. The Executive appears to be depending on Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education to investigate and act on such cases, but HMIE is not in the habit of following up individual cases at the time of complaint. Complaints are kept on file for reference at the next inspection. We do not want parents to be caught in the distressing limbo that might arise if they do not have the access to a tribunal that we seek.

Photo of Euan Robson Euan Robson Liberal Democrat

The purpose of amendment 47 is to remove section 13(3)(ba), which was inserted at stage 2. Paragraph (ba) extends the jurisdiction of the tribunals to referrals on failures of education authorities to make adequate or efficient provision to meet the needs of individuals who would require a CSP but for the fact that their needs can be met by the authority's education functions alone. That takes the tribunals far beyond what they were intended for, which would not be right, although I understand why some members might feel that it is necessary.

We all recognise that the current system for supporting children and young people who face barriers to learning is ineffective and that it needs an overhaul. That is the purpose of the bill, and that is why members agreed to its principles at stage 1. The policy intention is to take a fresh approach and to recognise a wider range of circumstances that may mean that pupils require additional support in school to help them to develop towards their full potential. We want to encourage co-operation between all those who provide additional support and the parents, children and young people. It is recognised that disputes will arise and that there must be mechanisms for dealing with them, but there is no desire to promote an adversarial approach. Rather, we included provision for new means of resolving difficulties, such as mediation and dispute resolution. The tribunals are intended to focus on the more complicated cases in which an individual's needs are such that they require a CSP.

Section 13(3)(ba) would give a right of referral to tribunals to parents of children and young people who do not meet all the criteria for a CSP. Specifically, it would give that right to those who do not need significant additional support to be provided from outwith the authority that is exercising its educational functions. In response to concerns from the committee and others about those who do not qualify for a CSP but who have additional support needs, we placed in section 2A an explicit duty on education authorities to make adequate and effective provision for each individual's additional support needs.

Equally important are the mechanisms that are in place to allow parents and young people to raise concerns that they have about the additional support that is provided. There will be new mediation services, a dispute resolution service and, as Adam Ingram said, HMIE will monitor the authorities. The bill also provides ministers with powers of direction, and there are existing remedies such as judicial reviews and the right to make a complaint to Scottish ministers under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Also, we have introduced measures in Section 24A to strengthen protection for children and young people who have a record of needs. The support that they are provided with will be protected, and that protection could last for as long as four years.

I firmly believe that all those measures taken collectively offer sufficient remedy for the concerns of parents and will ensure that children receive the support that they need to progress their learning. I hope that members agree. I see no need to extend access to the tribunals to the group of children and young people that is described in section 13(3)(ba). I fully understand the fear and worry that are involved in moving to a new system, but we must guard against over-legislating, because that is not the way to address those concerns. Paragraph (ba) is not necessary, and I urge members to support amendment 47, which removes it.

Amendment 48 is consequential to amendment 47.

Amendment 50 was intended to remove section 14A, which provides ministers with powers to extend what can be referred to tribunals, but I do not intend to move that amendment or the consequential amendment 56. The Executive's intention is to consider what use should be made of the powers. We believe that it will be valuable for the Executive and the Education Committee to take stock of the practical workings of the legislation when the bill is enacted and its provisions are in operation. Such a review will provide a valuable context in which to consider the application of the new powers. We need to do that in the light of experience of the bill's provisions in action, with the attendant regulations and the code of practice, which will inform the implementation of the primary and secondary legislation.

It will also be appropriate to take account of the views of the tribunals' president in the light of his or her experience. The proper process is to involve the committee in post-legislative scrutiny of the operation of the act and the tribunal procedure. The experience gained from a period of operation of the tribunals will also be valuable in assessing the number of applications, as Robert Brown mentioned. For those reasons, I do not intend to move amendment 56.

I turn to amendments 80, 83, 85 and 89, in the name of Robert Brown. There is an element of déjà vu. The subsection that amendment 80 would insert is, of course, well intentioned and, on the face of it, the amendment offers a useful filter to the corresponding provision in section 13(3)(ba). However, I still have difficulties with it, not least because I see no particular need for paragraph (ba), as I have already said. Amendments 85 and 89 offer ministers the opportunity to define what may be construed as a "substantial issue". I fear that that would take us back to the debate that we are having today and that it would cause even more concern and confusion about what can and cannot be referred to the tribunals. Therefore, I invite the member to indicate what he believes would constitute "a substantial issue" that should be considered at a tribunal hearing. Clarification on that would be helpful.

However, in line with my stance on the need to remove section 13(3)(ba) and section 14A, I ask members not to support amendments 80, 83, 85 and 89.

Amendments 81, 82, 84 and 86, which are all in the name of Adam Ingram, seek to extend the jurisdiction of tribunals so that they could consider issues that relate to a range of additional support needs. Amendments 81 and 82 would allow decisions to be referred to the tribunals where there was a dispute over the nature of a child's additional support needs or over the grounds for a refusal of an assessment. The mediation and dispute resolution arrangements that we are putting in place will be able to address such issues as they arise. The tribunals system will be required to take account of those children who have the most extensive needs, so we need to guard against its being used to adjudicate on every decision that an education authority might take. That is not the tribunals' role.

Amendment 84 aims to allow a failure to deliver the support set out in a CSP to be referred to the tribunal, but no definition is given of what marks something as a failure. The amendment would fundamentally change the role of tribunals to one of monitoring service delivery, which we debated at stage 2. As I have said repeatedly, the role of monitoring delivery is for HMIE, not the tribunals. Also, the amendment fails to accommodate other provisions in the bill and in other legislation that provide avenues whereby parents can seek resolution if they feel that education authorities are not meeting their obligations.

Amendment 86 is consequential on amendment 84.

I do not support amendment 49, in the name of Fiona Hyslop. As I said, the Executive's intention is to consider what use should be made of the powers in section 14A. It is most important that the Executive and the Education Committee take stock of the practical workings of the bill once it is enacted and comes into operation. Amendment 49 would pre-empt that by requiring that the powers be used within two years of the commencement of the bill. Moreover, the amendment would require ministers to extend to the tribunals at least those categories of decision and failure that are listed in sections 14A(1)(a) and 14A(1)(b), regardless of whether, as the system developed, users felt that that was necessary or desirable. Therefore, I ask members to reject amendment 49.

Photo of Fiona Hyslop Fiona Hyslop Scottish National Party 4:00 pm, 1st April 2004

One of the more interesting parts of stage 3 consideration is to see some movement from the Executive during the course of the debate. As members who have paid close attention will already know—those who have not will know now—we have seen that movement, which is welcome given the essential role that the tribunals will have.

Had eligibility for CSPs been expanded, access to the tribunals would have been less important, but as that did not happen, the tribunals are a core issue. Yes, we want to provide for dispute resolution and mediation, but it will still be necessary in some instances for disputes to go to tribunals. The Executive's approach would have been more honest if, instead of using the wider term "additional support needs tribunals", it had called them co-ordinated support plan tribunals. Adam Ingram's points on that issue were well made.

We have seen movement on whether the use of the tribunals should be expanded. In our stage 1 report, we said that it should. The minister has now said that he will consider using the powers. Amendment 49 would give the Executive two years to consider those powers, but then the Executive would be required to lay an order extending the powers of the tribunals to include those that are outlined in the section that was inserted by Robert Brown's amendment at stage 2. Amendment 49 would be a good step forward. Just as the minister wants the Education Committee to take stock, I want the Executive to take stock and my amendment would give it two years to do that.

Another welcome concession that we have managed to achieve is two years' protection for those children who currently have a record of needs. The reason that amendment 49 specifies that ministers must come back to the Parliament with an order within two years is that there is now protection on the face of the bill for children who have a record of needs to ensure that they receive a CSP assessment within that time.

Let me speak briefly to amendment 84, which is absolutely core. Regardless of any changes that might be made, if the education or health authority fails to deliver the additional support needs that are contained within an agreed CSP, the minister is saying that HMIE will sort that out. When will HMIE do that? Will that be when the child has left primary school, during the inspections that take place every three or four years? That does not make sense. Amendment 84 would ensure that, within the narrow confines that the bill provides, there would be some redress if the support needs that were agreed in a co-ordinated support plan were not lived up to. That issue, in particular, merits attention.

There has been some movement. I understand that in his summing-up Robert Brown might make some remarks about sifting, but I would like there to be a requirement that we move somewhat. Under amendment 49, the minister would have to come back within two years to extend the powers.

Photo of Elaine Murray Elaine Murray Labour

I support Executive amendment 47, which removes a provision that was inserted at stage 2. Initially, when I had discussions with Children in Scotland and others, I had sympathy with the intentions behind lines 20 to 24 on page 14 of the bill, although I did not vote for their insertion at stage 2. I was sympathetic to the provision because I thought that it could provide reassurance to parents of children who have records of needs but who will be ineligible for co-ordinated support plans in future. On further reflection, I believe that section 13(3)(ba) would restore to the legislation much of the uncertainty that surrounded eligibility for records of needs, which has led to postcode record-of-needs provision. It would remove the clarity of definition surrounding co-ordinated support plans that is one of the strengths of the bill.

Ministers have made it quite clear that local authorities have a duty to provide additional support for all children who need it to achieve their full educational potential. If they fail to do so, they are breaking the law and there are a number of ways in which people can get recompense, not just through HMIE. The minister has introduced further reassurance for parents of children with records of needs who will not be eligible for CSPs by introducing at stage 2 section 24A, which is much more specific and less open-ended in its definitions and intentions and is, therefore, a more robust provision.

I support amendment 47, to remove section 13(3)(ba) from the bill. If the provision is removed, the additional qualification in amendment 80 will not be required, so I urge Robert Brown to withdraw amendment 80 in favour of amendment 47.

Photo of Lord James Selkirk Lord James Selkirk Conservative

I have supported Robert Brown's amendments, I do support them and I will continue to support them. Of far more importance, the majority of members of the Education Committee supported them.

As convener of the Education Committee, Robert Brown has lodged an extremely important amendment in amendment 80, on the right to make a referral based on a failure to make adequate or efficient provision. In my view, the amendment is altogether reasonable.

Amendment 81 would cover situations in which there is a dispute over the facts and the nature of a child's additional support needs. Again, the amendment is altogether reasonable. Amendment 82 widens eligibility, which we support.

We are very much opposed to the minister's attempts in amendment 47 to leave out lines on page 14 of the bill that would widen the eligibility for referral to the tribunal. I pay tribute to Robert Brown for the convincing case that he put in committee. We would be wise to follow him in adopting the theme of expanding eligibility.

I am glad that the minister will not move amendments 50 and 56, which would remove a very large section from the bill. The section was inserted on the basis that the best possible deal must be offered to children with additional support needs and that the section offered a much more comprehensive deal than the Executive was offering at that stage. It would be a tragedy if the minister were allowed to undo the work of the Education Committee.

Amendment 84 relates to the failure of an education authority or any person identified in the plan. It is a sensible way of ensuring that the terms of a CSP are followed. Failure means failure and is pretty easy to identify when we see it. The word does not need excessive interpretation before being inserted in the bill.

Amendments 85 and 89 would empower ministers by regulations to interpret what is a substantial issue. That is an obvious safeguard in the event of unforeseen consequences.

Amendment 49 would enable ministers to extend categories of decision in respect of which a reference to a tribunal can be made. It can be very important for each individual case to be weighed on its merits, which can easily highlight exceptional circumstances that may require particular solutions that are suited to the child or young person in question. If the minister does not believe me, I recommend that he see the movie "Lorenzo's Oil", in which Susan Sarandon plays a distinguished role as the mother who knows what should be done for her child.

This group of amendments is probably the most important on which we must decide today. If the Executive is sincere about wanting to help people who have additional support needs, I hope that it will establish its good will by responding positively to Robert Brown's amendments.

Photo of Kenneth Macintosh Kenneth Macintosh Labour

At the risk of repeating myself, I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not believe that the duties and rights in the bill depend on a CSP or access to a tribunal. The bill contains powers for all children.

That said, many parents are aware from bitter experience that a mechanism is sometimes needed to enforce their children's rights. The dispute resolution process that the Executive introduced goes some way to allaying such concerns and anxieties. If we could be sure of the numbers that would be involved, having an independent tribunal that dealt with all dispute resolution situations would undoubtedly be a less cumbersome mechanism and would have a greater logical appeal.

However, given the way in which the bill is structured, many committee members hesitated before undermining that structure by increasing the numbers that could be referred to the tribunal. Such a solution might be neater; however, as Elaine Murray pointed out, we run the risk of repeating the mistakes of the record-of-needs system. We would simply turn the useful CSP document into a process for securing resources.

As Robert Brown knows, I was very sympathetic to the idea that the president of the new tribunal should sift the numbers. However, given the minister's assurances that he will examine the impact of the bill in practice, that he will consult the president of the tribunal to hear the tribunal's views and that the Education Committee will have a post-legislative scrutiny role—which is something that we discussed at stage 2—I urge Robert Brown not to press amendment 80 and all members to support amendment 47.

Photo of Rhona Brankin Rhona Brankin Labour

I rise to oppose the opening up of the tribunal system as set out in section 13(3)(ba) and to support the Executive's amendment 47. The decision to open up the tribunal system fundamentally shifts the bill's focus away from children who have the most complex needs and require interagency support. Indeed, it shifts the whole process towards confrontation when the bill's thrust is to seek to remove barriers to learning and to give parents and young people new rights to access mediation and dispute resolution services and, in some cases, the tribunal. Opening up the tribunal system will also shift resources away from provision for young people with additional support needs towards the system itself. As a result, I urge members to support the Executive amendments and to oppose the other amendments in the group.

Photo of Robert Brown Robert Brown Liberal Democrat

The debate has been very interesting. I am pleased to hear the minister's response, which, as Fiona Hyslop pointed out, moves things forward a bit.

Several members have rightly pointed out that the tribunals will deal with additional support needs, not CSPs. Indeed, that has been a slight sticking point in our approach to this issue. Moreover, the minister is right to say that the bill contains a series of what might be called bureaucratic and personal remedies. For example, section 2A, which extends the local authority's duty, brings with it the remedy of a judicial review through the courts. As a result, the bill contains a legal framework that offers individuals remedies at that particular level. Indeed, the minister was also right to say that section 70 remedies, mediation and advocacy arrangements and HMIE involvement are also available.

I have to say that I am not as cynical or as sceptical as some members are about HMIE's role. HMIE has been one of the organisations that have most impressed the Education Committee since it was set up in May. Its ability to deal with systems—which is the important issue in this case—and to find the level playing field that members have mentioned to address these matters is quite significant.

Fiona Hyslop said that the committee supported widening the tribunal's jurisdiction in its stage 1 report. However, that is not quite right. The committee actually asked the Executive to look at the issue again. Indeed, the committee's recommendation was carefully worded to obtain unanimous support from members. Nevertheless, I entirely accept that, because of issues that were raised at the time, the thrust of committee members' views was that they supported widening the tribunal's jurisdiction.

At the end of the day, it seems to me that what we have now got is an answer to the dilemma that I posed in the opening exchange in the debate on this group of amendments. There are certain ways forward, and I think that the right way forward is to look at the situation in the light of experience. I have been encouraged by the minister's response, which he read out in careful terms and which will be recorded in the Official Report. I accept the Executive's good faith in the matter. I also accept that the proper way to deal with the issue is to look at it in the light of experience and, in particular, to consider the views of the tribunal president and the committee. The Executive's intention to consider what use should be made of the powers so granted is an important commitment in that regard.

Against that background, I am prepared not to press amendment 80, on the understanding that the principal powers contained in existing section 14A are retained against the background of the undertakings made by ministers in that regard. Certain consequential amendments arise in both situations, but that means that I would also accept amendment 47, to delete the original amendment to section 13.

The debate has done its work. If I may say so, it has been a good example of the Parliament and the Executive working together and of the Executive responding to the concerns expressed in committee. I was grateful for Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's words of support as a loyal deputy convener, but unfortunately I cannot agree with him as to the remedy. I think that he should be responding, as I am trying to do, to the ministerial undertakings.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour 4:15 pm, 1st April 2004

As Robert Brown has sought leave to withdraw amendment 80, do members agree that that amendment be withdrawn?

Members:

No.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

There will be a division. The question is—

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

As you have just wound up the debate, there was an assumption on my part that you had moved it. If you had not done so, you should not have had the right to sum up.

Photo of Robert Brown Robert Brown Liberal Democrat

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I think that I should be asked to press or withdraw my amendment. As you rightly said, my indication, which I did not demur from, was that I would wish to withdraw the amendment, and that is the position, subject to the chamber's agreement. Somebody else would have to move the amendment formally if that was not the case—I think.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

That amendment has been moved. When I asked whether members agreed to your request to withdraw the amendment, I heard a yes and I heard a no, so we will go to a vote.

The question is, that amendment 80 be withdrawn. Is that agreed?

Photo of Johann Lamont Johann Lamont Labour

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My understanding is that if permission to withdraw an amendment is not granted, we move straight to the substance of the vote.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

You are absolutely correct. I apologise for that.

The question is, that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 19

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnstone, Alex, Kane, Rosie, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Martin, Campbell, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Monteith, Mr Brian, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, Welsh, Mr Andrew
Against: Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McMahon, 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, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 54, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 80 disagreed to.

[Amendment 81 moved—[Mr Adam Ingram.]]

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The question is, that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 20

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnstone, Alex, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Martin, Campbell, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Monteith, Mr Brian, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, Welsh, Mr Andrew
Against: Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McMahon, 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, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 55, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 81 disagreed to.

[Amendment 82 moved—[Mr Adam Ingram].]

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The question is, that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 21

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnstone, Alex, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Martin, Campbell, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Monteith, Mr Brian, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, Welsh, Mr Andrew
Against: Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McMahon, 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, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 54, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 82 disagreed to.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

Amendment 47 was debated with amendment 80. I remind members that, if amendment 47 is agreed to, it will pre-empt amendment 83.

Amendment 47 moved—[Euan Robson].

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The question is, that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 22

For: Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McMahon, 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, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnstone, Alex, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Martin, Campbell, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Monteith, Mr Brian, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, Welsh, Mr Andrew

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 61, Against 54, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 47 agreed to.

Amendment 93 moved—[Rhona Brankin]—and agreed to.

Amendment 84 moved—[Mr Adam Ingram].

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The question is, that amendment 84 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 23

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnstone, Alex, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Martin, Campbell, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Monteith, Mr Brian, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, Welsh, Mr Andrew
Against: Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McMahon, 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, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 54, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 84 disagreed to.

[Amendment 85 not moved.]