Section 1 — Offence of preventing or stopping a child from being fed milk

Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 3:02 pm on 18th November 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour 3:02 pm, 18th November 2004

Group 1 is on the maximum age of the child. Amendment 1, in the name of Carolyn Leckie, is grouped with amendments 2 to 5. If amendment 1 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 2 to 5.

Photo of Carolyn Leckie Carolyn Leckie SSP

I congratulate Elaine Smith, who has worked fantastically hard to bring the bill to this stage, and I also congratulate all the helpers, supporters and organisations that have helped in that wonderful achievement. The bill will have a very positive impact on the promotion, incidence and continuance of breastfeeding, with its indisputable health and emotional benefits. My amendments are positive and constructive—as they were at stage 2—and are designed to ensure that no child or breastfeeding mother is discriminated against.

My preference is that there should be no definition of a child's age in the bill. I believe that the mother-baby breastfeeding dynamic is exclusively the terrain of the mother and baby and that no one has a right to cast an opinion on when breastfeeding should cease. It would be wrong to dismiss the health benefits of breastfeeding a toddler or older child. Breast milk adapts to the exact needs of the child as it grows. Indeed, the concentration of antibodies and other anti-infective properties in breast milk increases as the amount of milk the child consumes declines. As a child grows and moves about it encounters hazards in the form of bacteria while it is on the floor in the kitchen or outside playing and breast milk adapts to take care of that development.

From an evolutionary perspective, there is no evidence that children should be weaned by a certain age. There are not only health benefits but emotional benefits and comfort for an articulate child who understands what it means to want a breastfeed. That is not just about fluid or food. By that age, an emotional relationship has been established and it should be up to the mother to decide when and where breastfeeding is necessary. I breastfed two children, one to two years and two months and one to about 16 months and that was their personal relationship with me. By that stage a child can need a breastfeed not just for food or fluid but for emotional comfort. A child might fall and bang its knee or its head and no one should be able to request its mother to stop breastfeeding that child for comfort in a public place, such as a restaurant or pub.

That is why the World Health Organisation, in its "Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding", which was adopted at the 2002 world health assembly, was careful not to set an upper limit on the duration of breastfeeding. The National Childbirth Trust reports women breastfeeding older children in secret because of society's intolerance—in fact, there is not just intolerance but abject hypocrisy when it comes to the display of breasts and nipples. There are tits all over the newspapers, tits all over newsagents' shelves, tits all over the telly, tits in the cinema, tits on advertising hoardings and, no doubt, tits in the Parliament. Tits for titillation are okay, apparently—

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

Ms Leckie, can I just stop for you for a minute? I was prepared to allow one such reference, but I think that we have got the message. Perhaps you could continue your speech without the use of that particular word. Thank you.

Photo of Carolyn Leckie Carolyn Leckie SSP

That was the last one. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.

Prudishness kicks in when it comes to the nutritional and emotional needs of an articulate child, who will still be blissfully unaware of society's double standards. Is the fact that the age has been set at two just pandering to that prejudice? I know that that is not Elaine Smith's intention, but I am worried that that might be the effect. It might pander to prejudice both within the Parliament—I have heard comments in the corridors about my amendments, so I know that there is such prejudice—and without.

If we do not amend the age limit in the bill, mums and children will be discriminated against. There are children in our culture breastfeeding over the age of two. If it is a criminal offence to harass or intimidate a breastfeeding mother of a child under two, surely it should be the same for all. Who decides whether a child is two years, 20 months, or 18 months and quite big? Will a publican who believes that a child is two be free to ask a mother to leave even though the child is 18 months old but looks older? There is potential for confusion. It is, rightly, against the law to assault someone. We would never countenance a law that meant that it was criminal to hit one person but not another, and we should avoid discrimination here.

My amendments allow members to decide how many breastfeeding toddlers they are prepared to avoid discriminating against. The higher the age, the greater the likelihood that no one will be left out. Prejudice should not be pandered to but needs to be confronted head on. Whose breasts are they anyway?

I move amendment 1.

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat

I oppose the amendments in Carolyn Leckie's name. It should not surprise members that no Health Committee member supported similar amendments at stage 2.

Everybody should be clear about what the bill is and is not. The bill does not create a new right to feed milk to a child in a public place. People already have that right in Scots law—that was made clear in the evidence to the Health Committee. If that is not what the bill is about, what is it about? It is about creating the new and appropriate criminal offence of preventing a child from being fed milk in a public place. If we are creating a new criminal offence, it is essential to have clarity. The amendments would fudge that and create difficulties. Amendment 1, which would remove the age limit altogether, would certainly do that.

The committee was impressed by the member who introduced the bill and the work that had been done to settle on the age of two. I have formed the impression from the amendments that Carolyn Leckie has lodged at stages 2 and 3 that she does not mind what age is chosen; if she does not get one age, she will go for another. That is not the way to approach amendments. All the amendments that she has lodged should be opposed for the simple reason that clarity in the criminal law is needed.

Photo of Stewart Stevenson Stewart Stevenson Scottish National Party

I hope that members will accept that I am not a prude, although I would not feel particularly offended if they suggested that I was. I am deeply disappointed that the speech from the member who lodged the amendments was, frankly, no more than a design to appear on tomorrow's front page of the Daily Mirror , The Sun or some other tabloid. The subject is serious and must be tackled appropriately. Carolyn Leckie's failure to show maturity does the argument that she deploys no good.

I am surprised that such amendments have been lodged at stage 3. An inability to present a coherent argument for a single viewpoint at stage 3 shows a singular lack of intellectual rigour and commitment to a viewpoint.

Photo of Stewart Stevenson Stewart Stevenson Scottish National Party

The member will be able to sum up.

I wonder whether, in having five amendments, the five Scottish Socialist Party members in the chamber should each have reflected one of the five viewpoints that the party clearly has.

I congratulate Elaine Smith on introducing the bill, which will be a valuable addition when it is passed, as I am sure it will be. I will be happy to support the bill, but the amendments do not show the way to deal with a bill at stage 3.

Photo of Fiona Hyslop Fiona Hyslop Scottish National Party 3:15 pm, 18th November 2004

I, too, remind members that we are at stage 3. The Parliament is a law-making place, so the decisions that we take when making laws must stand up in court. Carolyn Leckie has missed the point, as have the Conservatives in opposing the bill in toto. In many times and in many places, politics and legislation must be about compromise. It is striking that in the bill and in her response to the amendments in committee, the member in charge of the bill took a responsible approach based on compromise, to ensure that we take the country with us. We cannot have arguments such as those made by Carolyn Leckie, which divide people and distract them from the main point about what is needed.

I would have preferred us to take a different route: a position based on rights and antidiscrimination, such as was taken by Queensland in Australia. Had we done that, there would have been no need for Carolyn Leckie's amendments. We cannot take such an approach, because the Parliament does not have the powers to pursue it. Members are sighing, but this is a serious point. The issue is the powers of the Parliament. Because we are not taking the rights-based approach in the bill, we are required to make use of the criminal law, as Mike Rumbles pointed out. In matters of criminal law, it is necessary to be exact, because a criminal case could be pursued. That is the intellectual argument that Carolyn Leckie will have to address when she sums up. At stage 3, members must be responsible in the arguments that they make and must address the points at issue.

There is a strong argument for rejecting the amendments and for accepting that, as a compromise position, it is right that the Parliament should take a view on the age of children who are covered by the bill. In committee Kate Maclean made the important point that at the age of two a child is able to understand that it can be fed later. This is a responsible piece of legislation.

Very few women breastfeed beyond six weeks. Even fewer women breastfeed beyond two years. The bill is for the 80 per cent or more of women—working-class women—in West Lothian who do not breastfeed at all after six weeks. Let us take a responsible position, follow Elaine Smith's lead and reject the amendments.

Photo of Stewart Maxwell Stewart Maxwell Scottish National Party

I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendments and for Carolyn Leckie's position. It is slightly strange that we should say to mothers that they can breastfeed their children in public places up to the age of two but can no longer do so and be protected by this legislation after the children reach their second birthday. However, the member did not do her case justice in her opening speech—the argument could have been made better.

The problem with the amendments is that we risk giving the opponents of the bill the opportunity to put in a cheap shot, so that they can undermine the bill and make it a laughing stock. It is extremely important that we do not do that. Although I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments, which set out the position that we should hold in an ideal world, unfortunately that is not the situation.

Evidence from around the world suggests that many women breastfeed children who are over two years of age. However, Fiona Hyslop has made the point that that is not the situation in our society today. I thought that the purpose of the bill was to ensure that we sent out a strong message to the people of Scotland that we think that children should be breastfed, where possible, as that is good for children and mothers, and that we want to raise the number of children who are breastfed for longer periods. The critical point is that the bill is not about two years, but about six, seven and eight weeks.

The bill is too important to be lost because of attacks by some of our friends in the press and even by some of our friends in the chamber, who will use every possible avenue to attack and undermine the bill and its purpose. Although I sympathise with the amendments, they do not address the current situation. It is more important to pass the bill in its current form, to get it on to the statute book and to send out a strong message to women in Scotland that the Parliament is defending them and that we are doing the right thing by both mothers and children in our society.

Photo of Eleanor Scott Eleanor Scott Green

I will support the amendments, because I have re-examined the provisions of the bill, which talks about "feeding milk". That includes bottle feeding. I know that most children over the age of two or three are no longer bottle fed and that they can be told to wait if they demand to be breastfed or bottle fed. However, that is not the case for all children. Some children—especially children with special needs—are bottle fed milk for much longer and should not be missed out. We are not dealing with a large number of children, but they are a group that can be discriminated against. We should support the amendments, which will not undermine the bill. The amended provision will not be widely used or make a difference to many people, but it should be in the bill for the sake of completeness. I will support the amendments.

Photo of Cathie Craigie Cathie Craigie Labour

I congratulate Elaine Smith on introducing the bill and thank her for all the hours of work that she has put in over the past few years.

In opposing amendments 1 to 5 I will repeat some points that were made by colleagues. I have no sympathy for the amendments.

Photo of Carolyn Leckie Carolyn Leckie SSP

Fiona Hyslop talked about compromise, which is why the amendments were lodged in their current form. As I stated in my speech, my preference is for there to be no age definition at all, but amendments 1 to 5 allow members to avoid discriminating. Does Cathie Craigie believe that it should not be a criminal offence for a publican or a restaurant owner to ask a mother who is breastfeeding a child over two to stop or leave? Is she saying that she supports that?

Photo of Cathie Craigie Cathie Craigie Labour

No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that I do not support amendments 1 to 5. The Health Committee made the point that the age of the child is important, because at a certain age it could wait until it got home or went somewhere else.

I understand the situation well. I fed both my children for the first year of their lives, and I would do anything to encourage women to breastfeed their children. People who use bottles do not realise the benefits that they are missing out on, such as the closeness that a mother can experience when she breastfeeds her child, to which Carolyn Leckie referred. We have to get across to the 80 per cent of women who do not breastfeed their children that they do not have to be superwomen.

Breastfeeding is natural, but I am afraid that there are people out there who do not think that it is natural to feed a child aged six. To some people, supporting amendments 1 to 5 would be saying that we will be encouraging them to do that.

The bill takes us a great step forward, and shows that we will not allow women who are breastfeeding to be discriminated against. As other people have said, the amendments are more about publicity seeking than furthering the cause of encouraging women to breastfeed.

Photo of Andy Kerr Andy Kerr Labour

As noted at stage 2 by the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, Rhona Brankin, the Executive is committed to giving every child the best possible start in life. Elaine Smith's bill will contribute to that. We also feel that the bill's age limit of two years is appropriate.

In Scotland, our rates of breastfeeding initiation and duration are low and even at the six-week review fewer than 40 per cent of mothers are breastfeeding their babies. The Executive is committed to supporting breastfeeding and driving those rates up, but we must remain realistic. The World Health Organisation refers to feeding for two years and beyond and there will be mothers who continue to breastfeed for longer than two years—and we support them in doing so—but we believe that we must concentrate our support and promotional efforts on the very earliest period of a child's life. In particular, we believe the first six months to be the most important period and we encourage all women who can and choose to breastfeed to do so exclusively for the first six months. It is that early period that we will focus on when developing our national breastfeeding strategy in conjunction with the Scottish breastfeeding group over the coming year.

In choosing the two-year limit, the bill will offer protection to the majority of women who choose to breastfeed in Scotland. We must remember that keeping the age limit at two years in no way makes the act of breastfeeding in public illegal. There is the risk that removing or changing that limit could open up the bill to ill-deserved and ill-informed criticism. Elaine Smith has put in a great deal of work to get the bill to this stage. It would be a great shame if anything happened to jeopardise the bill—our bill—at this stage, and therefore the Executive will resist amendments 1 to 5.

Photo of Elaine Smith Elaine Smith Labour

Similar and identical amendments to those that are being moved by Carolyn Leckie today were rejected unanimously by the Health Committee at stage 2, but I am happy to debate the issues once again, because the more the subject is debated, the better for raising awareness and challenging some of the prejudices and misconceptions about breastfeeding.

I will provide a bit of background. It seems from research that the norm for weaning from the breast around the world is between two and four years, although in some cultures it happens when children are older. For example, custody law in India decrees that any child under six years old must reside with the mother because such children are considered to be of suckling age. Research that compares humans with other primates suggests that humans' natural weaning age is a minimum of two and a half years and a maximum of six to seven years. It should be entirely up to mothers and babies when they want to stop breastfeeding and there should be no stigma attached to that, because it is their choice.

However, we do not live in a breastfeeding culture in Scotland and there are, of course, cultural issues to address, to which Carolyn Leckie referred. The reality is that even a small baby who is utterly dependent on its mother's milk can be looked at askance when feeding in public and can be segregated or ejected from public places and licensed premises. The bill is intended to offer them protection in law and to promote breastfeeding, thereby—I hope—assisting in changing attitudes and impacting positively over time on how society views all breastfeeding.

I turn to the amendments. When proposed legislation seeks to change existing law it must be clear, unambiguous and precise, as other members have said. To leave the term "child" undefined would not make good law. Without a definition, "child" might include anyone from one day old to 18 years old. Given that the bill will create a criminal offence, "child" must be defined so that everybody knows exactly what the offence entails. Carolyn Leckie's amendment 1 must be rejected based the basic tenets of good Scots law.

Carolyn Leckie's other amendments relate to a more substantive issue, which the steering group that I set up with professionals discussed in several meetings. The group finally agreed to the age of 2 as a cut-off point. Given the research on weaning that I mentioned, we could argue that seven years would have been a more legitimate cut-off point; I note that Carolyn Leckie did not include the age of 7 in her suggestions. The age limit of two years was inserted in the bill because the World Health Organisation recommends that children be breastfed up to two years and beyond. It does not set an upper limit, but it does mention two years. It does not recommend that children be breastfed up to a year and beyond, three years and beyond or four years and beyond; it mentions two years and beyond. The age is not entirely arbitrary and there is logic to it.

The commonsense point was made to the Health Committee that children under two years cannot understand the concept of waiting for a feed, whereas older children can, and can generally communicate their feelings, wants and needs.

Photo of Carolyn Leckie Carolyn Leckie SSP

It is important that we address the point about children waiting for a feed because they can understand the concept. Why should they wait? For whose benefit should they wait, especially if they have an emotional need for a breastfeed? Should they wait because of other people's prejudices?

Photo of Elaine Smith Elaine Smith Labour

They will still be able to feed. There is a misconception about the bill, which will protect children up to two years old who are being breastfed in public; it will not make it illegal to feed them if they are aged over two years. Over time, we will begin to change the culture, to which Carolyn Leckie rightly referred.

The bill is about safeguarding and protecting the right of young children to feed. It will create a criminal offence that will ensure that babies have the unfettered right to feed in certain public places. After much deliberation, the steering group fixed the age at two years to define the meaning of "child" for the purposes of the bill. That decision is measured and proportionate. In considering the evidence at stage 1, the Health Committee concluded that to define "child" for the purposes of the bill was appropriate. In the vote at stage 2, it unanimously rejected leaving out the age or changing it to a higher age.

As I said in response to Carolyn Leckie's intervention, if the bill is passed benefits will accrue in changing attitudes, in making breastfeeding more culturally acceptable and in encouraging breastfeeding of children beyond the age two. I reiterate that the status quo will prevail. It will not be illegal to breastfeed one's child after the child is two years old; that is the misunderstanding.

Although some children are breastfed for longer than two years, the majority are weaned far too early, as is evidenced by the Executive's target of having by next year 50 per cent of children still breastfeeding at six weeks. That target is far from being realised—we are at below 40 per cent at present. Attitudes have to change and I think that they will evolve to embrace all breastfeeding as normal and nurturing maternal behaviour.

We have to consider the realpolitik. It is a bit of a quantum leap in the United Kingdom to introduce legislation on the matter. The provision of legal protection for breastfeeding of children up to two years old is reasonable, sensible and realistic for the reasons that I have outlined. However, if members take a different view and wish to insert an age other than two, that is their prerogative. The bill is in their hands at the moment and I would be relaxed about such a change.

I do not know where members will set the age limit; I do not know which of the options they will pick or what logic they will use. However, I am clear that the term "child" must be defined. Although I think that women and children should make their own choices about weaning from the breast, I must stand by the definition that is set out in the bill, as was agreed at stage 2.

Photo of Carolyn Leckie Carolyn Leckie SSP 3:30 pm, 18th November 2004

I was told that I would not get to wind up, so this is a surprise and I do not have anything written.

I have to challenge—[Interruption.] Members are getting all excited. I have to challenge the grossly unfair allegations about my speech, which demonstrate the abject hypocrisy that I described.

Members:

They do not.

Photo of Carolyn Leckie Carolyn Leckie SSP

They absolutely do. Some—although not all—speeches proved the points that I made about prejudice and pandering to prejudice. [ Interruption. ] I support the bill. I am not going to oppose it. I started off by congratulating Elaine Smith, and I will end by congratulating Elaine Smith. We will support the bill, whether or not it is amended.

Elaine Smith made a substantive point about the logic of determining the age limit. Elaine knows that, at stage 2, I moved amendments for there to be no limit or for the age limit to be five years, which would take the limit to a logical age—the start of a child's school years. The purpose of that was to bring as many children as possible under the definition of "child" in order to avoid discrimination. That is why I lodged amendments; Parliament can choose how many children from whom we want to remove any risk of their being discriminated against.

If members set the limit at the age of three, that will cover almost everybody. If they set the age limit at four, that will cover nearly 100 per cent. To go beyond that would concern very few more. I think that taking the limit to three years would be more logical in respect of the WHO's recommendations about "two years and beyond". The point is worth repeating: in its latest strategy document, the World Health Organisation deliberately avoided providing a definition. In that definition, "beyond" means beyond two. Surely, it would be most logical to insert an age limit of three; Parliament can make that choice.

I was challenged to propose a compromise, which is why my amendments are as they are. They allow the opportunity for compromise and what could be more democratic, inclusive and dynamic than that? At stage 2, Elaine Smith asked why the limit could not be seven, six, five or four. It was legitimate to ask that, but I have still not had a satisfactory answer to the question why the limit should be two. Children are breastfed beyond that age—[Interruption.]

Could you stop the interruptions, Presiding Officer? This really is not fair.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

You have a point, Ms Leckie.

I was about to say that, when a member is on their feet making a speech or a statement, it really is rude of you all to be talking, and you are doing a lot of that. Members should listen to what Ms Leckie is saying.

Photo of Carolyn Leckie Carolyn Leckie SSP

I do not mind having a conversation about the matter outside the chamber, but I did not think that we were supposed to have such conversations in here.

There are children in the public gallery today. No doubt, there are toddlers beyond the age of two in the gallery, very attentively watching the debate and listening to what is said. They will be disappointed with some of the remarks that have been made and with some of the prejudice that has been conveyed by some people. Instead of acknowledging that a stigma exists and setting the age limit at two because of that stigma, we should be challenging that stigma. I challenge Parliament to consider compromising on the matter, as Fiona Hyslop asked us to do, and at least to adopt "two years and beyond". To my mind, "two years and beyond" is three. Please support that proposal.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

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

Members:

No.

Division number 1

For: Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Curran, Frances, Fox, Colin, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Sheridan, Tommy
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baird, Shiona, Baker, Richard, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Finnie, Ross, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jamieson, Cathy, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McFee, Mr Bruce, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Morgan, Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Rumbles, Mike, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Tosh, Murray, Turner, Dr Jean, Wallace, Mr Jim, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 7, Against 86, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

Amendment 2 moved—[Carolyn Leckie].

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

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

Members:

No.

Division number 2

For: Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Curran, Frances, Fox, Colin, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Finnie, Ross, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jamieson, Cathy, Kerr, Mr Andy, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McFee, Mr Bruce, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Morgan, Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Rumbles, Mike, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Tosh, Murray, Turner, Dr Jean, Wallace, Mr Jim, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 14, Against 79, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 disagreed to.

Amendment 3 moved—[Carolyn Leckie].

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

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

Members:

No.

Division number 3

For: Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Curran, Frances, Fox, Colin, Harvie, Patrick, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Finnie, Ross, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jamieson, Cathy, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McFee, Mr Bruce, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Morgan, Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Rumbles, Mike, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Tosh, Murray, Turner, Dr Jean, Wallace, Mr Jim, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 13, Against 80, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 3 disagreed to.

Amendment 4 moved—[Carolyn Leckie].

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 4

For: Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Curran, Frances, Fox, Colin, Harvie, Patrick, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Finnie, Ross, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jamieson, Cathy, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McFee, Mr Bruce, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Morgan, Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Rumbles, Mike, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Margaret, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Tosh, Murray, Turner, Dr Jean, Wallace, Mr Jim, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 13, Against 79, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 4 disagreed to.

Amendment 5 moved—[Carolyn Leckie].

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 5

For: Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Curran, Frances, Fox, Colin, Harvie, Patrick, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Butler, Bill, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Finnie, Ross, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jamieson, Cathy, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McFee, Mr Bruce, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Morgan, Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Rumbles, Mike, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Tosh, Murray, Turner, Dr Jean, Wallace, Mr Jim, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 12, Against 82, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 5 disagreed to.