Group 1 is on the number of councillors to be returned in an electoral ward. Amendment 1, in the name of Tricia Marwick, is grouped with amendments 2 and 3.

The Local Governance (Scotland) Bill will introduce proportional representation for local government elections, but the system as laid out in the bill is not as proportional as it could or should be. Amendment 1 would allow for two, three, four and five-member wards. Amendment 2 would provide that two-member wards should not be the norm, but should be used only for reasons of geography or sparse population. That is important for the Highlands and Islands and other rural areas because, otherwise, the ward sizes could be the size of a small country. Amendment 2 is necessary to maintain the councillor-ward link in such areas, which is what the McIntosh and Kerley reports believed should happen.

The Executive's justification for having three or four-member wards with a single transferable vote system is that it achieves the right balance between providing proportionality and maintaining the essential councillor-ward link. However, all the evidence shows that the balance would be better achieved with wards that could have two, three, four or five members. It is accepted that the more members per ward in a system, the more proportional the system is. It is also accepted that the councillor-ward link must be maintained. The balance between those two considerations was a central concern of the Kerley report and of the STV working group interim report, both of which concluded that the balance is best achieved via wards with three, four or five members, with wards of two members in exceptional circumstances—which means in remote or sparsely populated areas. The benefit of having two, three, four or five-member wards is that it would provide proportionality, maintain the councillor-ward link and provide flexibility for areas in which three, four or five-member wards would be inappropriate or impractical.

The Executive, in producing the bill and in rejecting similar amendments to the bill at stage 2, set aside the conclusions of the two groups that it set up to consider the matter—the Kerley committee and the STV working group. Expert witnesses to the Local Government and Transport Committee, including Professors John Curtice and David Farrell, argued that, by restricting wards to three or four members, the system becomes significantly less proportional. In fact, if Scotland adopts three or four-member wards, as the Executive wishes, we will have the least proportional STV system in the world.

I welcome the fact that the Executive is introducing PR for local government, but it is essential that we get it right and that we get it right the first time. The debate is not about what is in the interests of political parties or councillors, but about what is right for the citizens of Scotland.

I move amendment 1.

I will speak to amendment 3 and in support of amendments 1 and 2. Today's debate is about the regeneration of local government and the reintroduction of genuinely representative democracy at local government level. Unfortunately, the Executive's proposed scheme is the worst of all worlds. As Tricia Marwick said, if the scheme is supported, it will make Scotland the least representative proportional representation scheme in the world. Even if Tricia Marwick's amendment 1 were supported—as it should be—we would still have the least representative proportional representation scheme in the world, but at least we would match some of the other schemes. The Executive is determined to drag the proportionality even lower. The Executive's proposal strikes the wrong balance; it has been dragged too far toward the member-ward link and not far enough toward proportionality.

The Liberal Democrat members must recognise that the proposal is a compromise too far. In fact, it would be a compromise to accept ward sizes of two to five members. All the expert witnesses and independent groups, such as the STV working group, the Kerley committee and the McIntosh commission, and the Electoral Reform Society, stated clearly that the minimum acceptable ward size in urban areas is five members. The Liberal Democrats must ask themselves whether they are willing to support fewer members per ward than the number supported by all those independent experts. I hope that they are not. I also hope that they will support amendment 3, which recognises the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland's recommendation that, for reasons of sparsity and size, there can be two members per ward, which allows us the flexibility required to make the scheme work. If we do not accept the amendments, we will be ignoring all the evidence that independent sources presented to the committee and sticking with grubby party-political compromises.

I am delighted to rise to speak on an important day and on an important piece of legislation.

Tommy Sheridan has accused us of all sorts of things, but it is important to recognise that if it were not for the Liberal Democrats, the Parliament would not be debating the issue at all. There is a lack of consistency in the arguments proposed by Tricia Marwick and Tommy Sheridan, and in that which will no doubt shortly be proposed by David Mundell, if he follows the line that he has taken in committee. On the one hand, they are trying to tell us that the system of four members per ward proposed by the bill is not proportionate enough. On the other hand, they want to reduce that to a system of two members per ward or fewer, which is even less proportionate. There is inconsistency in their argument. Do those members want a proportional system or not? The Liberal Democrats want a system that is more proportional than that we have at present.

Does the member accept that two-member wards would only be used in those areas, particularly rural areas, where to create larger ward sizes of more than two members would effectively have councillors responsible for an area the size of a whole country? How can he not support an amendment that would benefit people in rural areas, such as the Highlands and Islands, the south-west of Scotland and elsewhere?

Because I support a more proportionate system, and we cannot have that if we have wards of only two members. Two-member wards are not required in Ireland, which has similar rural populations to those found in many parts of Scotland, so I do not see why we would require them in Scotland.

I wonder whether Iain Smith will answer two questions. First, would ward sizes of two members be more or less proportionate than what we have now? Secondly, will he accept that the evidence to the committee for ward sizes of two came, not from Tricia Marwick or from me, but from independent sources?

I do not recollect independent sources arguing for two-member wards in the debate. A number of council representatives who presented evidence to the committee put forward the case for two-member wards, but I do not recollect the independent academic witnesses to whom Tommy Sheridan referred earlier arguing for that.

In his opening remarks, Iain Smith put on record the role of the Liberal Democrats in introducing the legislation. Does he agree that what is happening today demonstrates what the Conservatives have argued all along, which is that in situations where we have proportional representation we end up with tails wagging dogs?

There would be few people on the Conservative benches had the Liberal Democrats not ensured, through the constitutional convention, that we got proportional representation for the Parliament.

It is a balance. As has rightly been said, the number of members in an STV system is a compromise. I am sure that David Mundell will argue that the bill's proposal is not proportionate enough, but his party does not believe in proportionality at all. His arguments in committee would suggest that he thinks that the only way in which proportionality can be achieved is to have every councillor elected in a single ward. It will be a compromise. We have listened throughout the debate—from McIntosh, through Kerley, to the responses to the white paper and the draft bills—to the concerns of local government about the need to maintain the member-ward link. That is why that compromise of three or four-member wards is there. That is a compromise, because we will not get perfect proportionality under STV. It is not a proportional system in that sense, but it is a system of fair votes. It allows us to ensure that the electorate has the final say on who represents it, but it also retains the important member-ward link and does so at a ward size that is reasonable and manageable for the council members and their electorates.

I propose to members that they reject amendments 1 to 3.

I know that members always enjoy hearing words of wisdom from Margaret Thatcher. Most apt for today is the great lady's profound pronouncement:

"It's a funny old world".

Yesterday, the First Minister announced that he could not imagine anything more harmful to Scotland's future than the politics and policies of the Scottish National Party, but today we find Mr Kerr, who is not always known for his generosity towards nationalism, throwing the same Scottish National Party and its leader—whoever that might be by 2007—a lifeline. Labour members should be in no doubt from all the psephology and academic debate that the principal beneficiaries of the hybrid voting system will be the SNP. The bill has never been about opening up local government to the diversity that is now evident in Scottish politics.

Will David Mundell give way?

I will give way later.

As I said at stages 1 and 2, the bill is about not proportional representation, but a hybrid voting system that is not used anywhere else in the world and is the lowest common denominator that could meet the short-term objectives of Labour and Liberal Democrat MSPs without giving a single thought to local democracy and voters.

It is to their credit that Tricia Marwick, Andrew Welsh and others have continued to argue for a fully proportional system, as they did at stage 2, despite being the obvious beneficiaries of the proposed system. The Conservatives intend to support them, because, if we are to abandon the first-past-the-post system with all its obvious merits, logic surely dictates that the replacement should be proportional, rather than the least proportional system in the world, as the evidence to the committee said.

Perhaps I was the only member who was listening to Mike Rumbles's lecture to the Parliament last week during the consideration of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill's provisions on the dispersal of groups. He said that those provisions would

"drive a coach and horses through the evidence-based approach to legislation that the Parliament is supposed to have adopted."—[Official Report, 17 June 2004; c 9216.]

Anybody who has sifted through the evidence that was given to the committee orally or in writing would conclude that there is precious little support for a system that uses the single transferable vote and, more important, that there is no support for introducing the hybrid, something-or-nothing approach that is proposed. That is why Mr Sheridan's amendment 3 and Ms Marwick's amendments 1 and 2 should be supported. If we are going to abandon first past the post, let us at least have a proper system of proportional representation.

David Mundell started off by observing that it is a funny old world. I must agree with him, because last week, the Scottish Socialist Party and the Tories united to oppose the powers of dispersal and today they are united in opportunism to try to maximise their own party-political advantages. The Tories oppose PR in principle, but, when we get down to the practice of it, they want the system to be even more proportional than the proposed approach.

I oppose all the amendments in the group. Many of the members who propose that we should have two-member wards are the same members who are saying that the system that the Executive has proposed is not proportional enough. It seems to me to be completely bizarre that someone can argue that the system is not proportional enough, but at the same time propose to make it less proportional in some parts of Scotland.

Is Bristow Muldoon therefore totally rejecting the evidence given by Argyll and Bute Council, which clearly showed that the needs of rural areas must be taken into account in the bill, which is what amendment 1 would ensure?

I reject much of the evidence that has been given in support of two-member wards. Back when I was a councillor, it was not the beautiful countryside, the rolling hills, the trees or the sheep that generated the case load, it was people. Account is already taken of some of the challenges that are presented by the geographical diversity of Scotland by the fact that there are roughly 2,000 members of the electorate to one member in parts of rural Scotland and roughly 6,000 members of the electorate to one member in the cities. In my view, that already takes perhaps too much account of the challenges that face people in rural areas. If anything, there might be an argument to be made for asking whether we have too many councillors in some rural areas. Rather than making the situation worse by ensuring that the cities have high degrees of proportionality and the rural parts of Scotland have low degrees of proportionality, the balance that has been proposed is fair.

People have said that the proposed system is the least proportional STV system in the world. However, we should be comparing the system not with systems elsewhere in the world, but with the first-past-the-post system that it will replace. The proposed system is hugely more proportional than that first-past-the-post system.

I accept that the proposed system would be more proportional than a first-past-the-post system. However, will Bristow Muldoon accept the evidence that it would be the least proportional STV system in the world, rather than dismissing that evidence?

I accept that many of the limited number of systems that exist have five-member wards. However, many countries have three or four-member wards as well, such as the Republic of Ireland, which has operated that system for many years.

I draw members' attention to the fact that Jeremy Beecham gave evidence that, in areas such as Birmingham, there was a problem with council wards that were too large—he spoke of wards with as many as 24,000 members of the electorate. It should not be a question of taking account of just the geographical size of a ward; we must also take account of the population size of the ward. If five-member wards were created, we could end up creating wards in Glasgow and Edinburgh that would be equivalent in size to some of Scotland's smaller cities. We should not be worrying about the geographical size of a ward, but the case load that we are creating for councillors in our cities, which I am sure is already high.

All the amendments should be rejected on the basis that the bill's proposals are a balance between proportionality and the member-ward link. It has always been clear that that is the case. The member-ward link is an important part of the British electoral system and we would be ill advised to throw it away. I urge members to reject all three amendments.

It is important that we reflect on what we want and why we are debating this bill. We want better governance at local authority level. Part of the solution to that is a system of proportional representation. I am glad that there is now a consensus in Scottish politics that a system of proportional representation is needed to ensure that we deliver that better governance.

We need to create a more representative system of local government that maintains the link between people and their elected representatives. In answer to the points that Bristow Muldoon has raised, I say that, to do that, we need to give the system the flexibility to take account of the circumstances that he was describing. I support the amendments lodged by Tricia Marwick and Tommy Sheridan because they will bring about the flexibility that will allow better governance and better representation. The amendments will result in greater flexibility in urban areas where there are large natural communities, such as Leith, which are bigger than three or four wards, and in the large rural areas. Therefore, they will result in the political flexibility that comes from maximising representation. We want fair votes and the flexibility to match local circumstances and meet local people's needs, because it is the local people who are important. That is why we need the flexibility that is afforded by the amendments in the names of Tricia Marwick and Tommy Sheridan.

I enjoyed hearing David Mundell explain his position because it reminded me of those principled Tories who took the no-yes position in the debate on the Scottish Parliament—they did not want a Scottish Parliament but if there were to be one it should have full powers. If we are to have PR, we ought to have PR with the flexibility to match local needs.

I will be brief. I was moved to speak by Bristow Muldoon's comments on two-member wards in a small number of rural areas. He clearly put the view—perhaps I was mistaken, but it certainly came across to me—that there are already too many rural councillors. I will be delighted to take that message back to Mid Scotland and Fife and let many of the rural councillors know that there are too many of them. Bristow Muldoon made it clear that he is concerned about the work load of urban councillors, but why is he not concerned about the work load of rural councillors, which is exacerbated by the distances that they have to travel?

Does Brian Monteith recognise that the work load of a councillor with 6,000 electors—for example, in Glasgow—is likely to be far bigger than the work load of a councillor with only 2,000 electors?

I do not dispute that numbers might generate additional work. My point is about the ability to service that work, which might be in tower blocks; the councillor would not need to take a ferry between each floor. We are saying that a small number of councillors face difficulty in servicing their wards.

Bristow Muldoon said that there is some dishonesty in the Conservatives' approach in that we support the first-past-the-post system in principle but we want greater proportionality if we are to have the proposed form of STV. Frankly, what we want is honesty in the proportionality. If the argument compares the proposed form of STV with the first-past-the-post system and states that we should choose STV because it is proportional, it stands to reason that we will be better served if it is truly proportional. To have a hybrid that is hardly proportional at all suggests that there is no need—

Will the member take an intervention?

No. I am sorry, but the member did not give way when I asked.

There is no need to adopt a new system unless we have an honest system, such as the one that is proposed by Tricia Marwick and Tommy Sheridan.

The partnership agreement is clear. We have opted for a system with three or four members per ward to strike the correct balance between proportionality, the size of the ward and the councillor-ward link. The Local Government and Transport Committee endorsed that view. In relation to some of the previous comments, I point out that it is the job of committee members to take evidence but not always to agree. They should take decisions on their own about the merit of the arguments that are presented to them at committee meetings. While I am addressing the comments that were made earlier, I point out that Brian Monteith represents a party of centralisation and emasculation of local government, so it is abysmal for him to stand and shed crocodile tears for local councillors.

We recognise the arguments that have been made and the differing views on the matter. Amendments 1 and 2, in the name of Tricia Marwick, would replace the current provision of three or four members per ward with two to five members per ward and would provide for two-member wards to be permitted only where the ward is geographically remote or sparsely populated.

Amendment 3, in the name of Tommy Sheridan, is dependent on amendment 1. It provides that there should be two members per ward only where the boundary commission has made such a proposal due to exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances would be for the boundary commission to determine and, unlike amendment 2, amendment 3 does not restrict two-member wards to remote or sparsely populated areas.

Our concern about the proposals is that as we increase the number of members per ward, we weaken the councillor-ward link. As we decrease the number of members per ward, we strengthen the councillor-ward link but decrease proportionality. In both cases we move closer to one McIntosh criteria but further away from another. I contend that no system is perfect. STV is used in several countries around the world and has been adapted in each case to meet local circumstances.

Does the minister accept that although McIntosh recommended a proportional system, it was Kerley who recommended that STV should be adopted because it was proportional and maintained the councillor-ward link and that ward sizes should be from two to five members?

Kerley also said that the criteria that McIntosh set out should be balanced. That is why we believe that having three or four-member wards strikes the right balance for Scotland. I was pleased that the Local Government and Transport Committee accepted that after weighing up the wealth of evidence that it was given.

Will the minister give way?

No, thank you.

We should also bear it in mind that STV has operated well in Ireland with a minimum of three members per ward and that the sparsity of population in many parts of Ireland is not dissimilar to that in Scotland.

The bill provides for the boundary commission to consult councils fully from the first stages of its review.

The minister says that we should consider Ireland. Is he aware that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in Ireland recommended to members who visited Ireland that they should not choose the system there?

We have had many arguments about the issues and I am aware of that point. However, the system there works and Ireland has broad similarities with Scotland in the sparsity of population.

Consultation will be especially important for rural and island authorities, which will want to take every opportunity to ensure that local ties and other factors are taken into account. Our bill provides that opportunity.

We introduced amendments at stage 2 to underline the need for local ties to be taken into account and to add a stage to the consultation process on the boundary commission's draft proposals, to give councils the opportunity to comment on them and to allow those comments to be considered before the proposals are published for wider consultation.

We firmly believe that having three or four members per ward strikes the right balance for Scotland. I ask for amendment 1 to be withdrawn and for amendments 2 and 3 not to be moved.

I have heard the Executive's arguments, which I heard at stage 2. Nobody apart from Labour and Liberal members is convinced by them.

The McIntosh commission recommended a proportional system for local government elections. Kerley was charged with concluding what the right kind of proportional system was. Kerley recommended STV, which is what we are examining today, but what is important is that Kerley recommended that each ward should have from two to five members and that a ward could have two members in exceptional circumstances. Amendments 1 and 2 would create such a system. They would put in the bill the Kerley report's recommendations.

Every independent group of witnesses and experts who gave evidence to the Local Government and Transport Committee recommended ward sizes of between two and five members. The Executive can reject that—it has the numbers to do so. However, we should not pretend that the bill proposes anything other than a political fix by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. The minister gave the game away—he talked about the partnership agreement and how that was more important than putting in place true proportionality.

Bristow Muldoon said that rural areas have too many councillors. Like Brian Monteith, I think that that remark will come back to haunt him.

Will the member explain why she believes that it is important to have a high degree of proportionality in urban areas but a low level in rural areas?

The member misrepresents me, but I do not misrepresent him. I heard him say that rural areas have too many councillors. I do not support a hybrid; I support the Kerley group's recommendations. That group was established to consider the form of proportional representation for local government. It recommended STV and ward sizes of between two and five members. Iain Smith can continue to deny that any expert opinion—and in particular Kerley—suggests that, but that will not be true.

I quoted the Kerley report in a Local Government and Transport Committee meeting. Kerley recommended four-member wards, but I accept that he said that other ward sizes, such as five or two members, might be acceptable in exceptional circumstances. He recommended that the right size was four members.

The member makes a point indeed.

If we are going to introduce a PR system for local government and if that system is going to be STV, it is incumbent on us to get the best-possible system that retains the member-ward link and offers proportionality. The Executive's bill is simply not good enough and I urge members of all parties to support amendments 1 and 2.

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 1

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Curran, Frances, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnstone, Alex, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, 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, Finnie, Ross, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, 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, Raffan, Mr Keith, 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

The result of the division is: For 47, Against 65, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

[Amendment 2 moved—[Tricia Marwick].]

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

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 2

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Johnstone, Alex, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, 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, Finnie, Ross, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, 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, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinburne, John, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

The result of the division is: For 44, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 disagreed to.

[Amendment 3 moved—[Tommy Sheridan].]

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

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 3

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnstone, Alex, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Munro, John Farquhar, Neil, Alex, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, 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, Finnie, Ross, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, 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, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, 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

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 3 disagreed to.