Section 1 — Assaulting or impeding certain emergency workers responding to emergency circumstances

Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 3:15 pm on 22nd December 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour 3:15 pm, 22nd December 2004

Group 2 is on workers who provide a rescue service on a body of water. Amendment 4, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 5, 1 and 6.

Photo of Tom McCabe Tom McCabe Labour 3:30 pm, 22nd December 2004

In extending the bill's protection to crews of rescue vessels that are not operated by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, our stage 2 amendment referred to

"purposes similar to those of the RNLI".

At stage 2, it was brought to my attention that, because the Royal National Lifeboat Institution describes its function with the phrase

"The RNLI saves lives at sea", rescue vessels that save lives on bodies of water other than the sea might not be covered by the bill.

As I made clear to the Justice 1 Committee at the time, our intention was to draw comparisons with the water rescue operations of the RNLI, but the body of water on which those operations take place should be irrelevant. That is why our stage 2 amendment did not specify bodies of water. However, an amendment that makes that explicit will be helpful.

I sympathise, therefore, with the intention behind Stewart Stevenson's amendment 1, but I do not believe that it would achieve its purpose. Stewart Stevenson has argued that the reference to the purposes of the RNLI in the bill's existing definition of non-RNLI rescue vessels would have the effect of restricting the bill's protection to vessels that operate at sea. If that is the case, his proposed definition in amendment 1 might similarly restrict the bill to vessels that operate for the purpose of saving lives at sea, as his amendment would retain a reference to the purposes of the RNLI.

Jackie Baillie's amendments 5 and 6 provide an all-encompassing definition of the rescue crews that the bill seeks to protect. Her amendments would clarify that the bill will provide protection to crew members of any rescue vessel responding to emergency circumstances on any body of water. By focusing on the purpose for which the vessel operates—namely, water rescue—Jackie Baillie's amendments are consistent with the bill's focus on emergency circumstances. The important issue is the work of saving lives that rescue vessels undertake rather than the body of water on which that is undertaken. For those reasons, I will support amendments 5 and 6, but cannot support amendment 1.

Amendment 4 is a purely technical amendment that will ensure that the bill makes correct reference to the "Royal National Lifeboat Institution" rather than to the "Royal National Lifeboat Institute".

I move amendment 4.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

I welcome the minister's comments. In briefly providing members with some background to amendments 5 and 6, I hope that I will be forgiven for being ever-so-slightly parochial.

The Loch Lomond rescue boat service, which is staffed by volunteers, operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. Quite simply, its objective is to save lives. However, the bill as introduced did not explicitly cover inland water rescue services. I agree with Pauline McNeill that we do not want to end up with a lengthy list of particular groups of workers, but the Loch Lomond rescue boat volunteers should be included, given that they are emergency workers who work in emergency circumstances.

We had quite a debate at stage 2, during which the minister helpfully sought to address that omission by amending the bill. Although the committee was generally supportive of his approach, we had lingering doubts as to whether we had achieved our aim. I shall not subject members to the finer arguments that were put by Stewart Stevenson on the role of the RNLI and on the differences between different bodies of water—he can be relied on to go over the arguments again.

Suffice it to say that amendments 5 and 6 are an attempt to put the matter beyond doubt. The amendments would include within the scope of the bill rescue boat services that operate in clearly defined emergency circumstances. In providing protection to crew members of any rescue vessel that responds to emergency circumstances on any body of water, the amendments are consistent with the overall approach of the bill.

I thank the minister for indicating the Executive's support for amendments 5 and 6, which I hope Parliament will support.

Photo of Stewart Stevenson Stewart Stevenson Scottish National Party

It is clear that the minister listened at stage 2, as he has articulated to perfection where I was coming from.

Given that the issue was originally raised by Jackie Baillie, I was delighted to hear the minister say that the Executive will accept her amendments. I have no intention of pressing amendment 1 in the face of such well argued, well reasoned and consistent support for Jackie Baillie's position. After a performance like that in sooking up to the Executive, one never knows, but she might be a minister soon. Friends in high places are always worth having.

Amendments 5 and 6 would remove the potential anomaly that the bill could cover rescue services at sea but not rescue services on inland waterways. Given the increase in the amount of activity on inland waterways, it is important that we provide appropriate support.

We will happily support Jackie Baillie's amendments 5 and 6 and the minister's technical amendment 4.

Photo of Margaret Mitchell Margaret Mitchell Conservative

We will support amendment 4, which is a drafting amendment. We will not support the other amendments in the group, for the same reason that we opposed the amendments in group 1. The amendments would create a two-tier system of provision for public sector workers. All the provisions could be dealt with much better under the flexibility of common law.

Photo of Tom McCabe Tom McCabe Labour

I commend Jackie Baillie for her continuing support for the Loch Lomond rescue boat and other similar rescue vessels. I share her concern for ensuring that such rescue crews are adequately protected by the bill. The amendments that she has lodged provide helpful clarification. I accept entirely that Stewart Stevenson's amendments were well intentioned, but I do not believe that they would have achieved their purpose.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

Amendment 5 moved—[Jackie Baillie.]

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

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

Members:

No.

Division number 2

For: Adam, Brian, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baird, Shiona, Baker, Richard, Ballard, Mark, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kane, Rosie, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McFee, Mr Bruce, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morgan, Alasdair, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robison, Shona, Robson, Euan, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fraser, Murdo, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Johnstone, Alex, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Monteith, Mr Brian, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 86, Against 11, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 5 agreed to.

Amendment 1 not moved.

Amendment 6 moved—[Jackie Baillie.]

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 3

For: Adam, Brian, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baird, Shiona, Baker, Richard, Ballard, Mark, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Johnstone, Alex, Kane, Rosie, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McFee, Mr Bruce, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morgan, Alasdair, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robison, Shona, Robson, Euan, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fraser, Murdo, Goldie, Miss Annabel, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 89, Against 9, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendment 3 not moved.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

Group 3 is on "Definition of emergency worker: social workers". Amendment 7, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 15, 16 and 8. If amendment 16 is agreed to, amendment 8 will be pre-empted.

Photo of Tom McCabe Tom McCabe Labour

I remind Parliament that this issue was considered in the Justice 1 Committee's stage 1 report and was discussed, debated and agreed at stage 2. At stage 1, the committee recommended that the bill be extended to cover the emergency role that is played by mental health officers and social workers in dealing with child protection orders. The Executive supported the amendments that were lodged by Mary Mulligan and Margaret Smith which included mental health officers and social workers dealing with child protection orders.

Amendments 7 and 8 will extend the bill slightly further to include social workers who are dealing with emergency protection authorisations, which are similar to child protection orders. Such authorisations provide local authorities with the same powers to remove a child to a place of safety or to prevent the removal of a child. They act as a back-up to child protection orders, as they can be awarded by a justice of the peace when a child protection order cannot be obtained from a sheriff. Like child protection orders, they are intrinsically connected with emergencies and, as with child protection orders, social workers who are charged with enforcing them are essentially providing an emergency service. The Executive therefore believes that social workers who are dealing with emergency protection authorisations should be added to the list of workers who are protected in responding to emergency circumstances. I urge Parliament to support amendments 7 and 8.

The issues that are raised in Kenny MacAskill's amendments 15 and 16 were considered at stages 1 and 2, when he lodged similar amendments that were, after discussion by the Justice 1 Committee, withdrawn in favour of amendments lodged by Mary Mulligan and Margaret Smith. Essentially, amendments 15 and 16 would extend the circumstances in which the bill will protect social workers from the emergency situations that were identified by the committee—carrying out mental health officer functions and child protection activities—to their carrying out more routine duties. I cannot agree that the bill should be extended to protect social workers in undertaking their more routine activities; therefore, the Executive does not support Kenny MacAskill's amendments 15 and 16.

Amendment 15 relates to social workers' carrying out assessments and investigating whether there is a need to apply for child protection orders. Although those are crucial functions, by their very nature they are about finding out whether emergency circumstances exist and so are not, in themselves, emergency responses. Therefore, they do not fall within the reach of the bill.

Amendment 16 would go still further by extending, in effect, the bill's protection to all social workers, which would serve to compound the problem that would be created by amendment 15 by including in the bill people who are much less likely to respond to emergency circumstances in their professional lives.

I also draw members' attention to significant technical problems that are presented by Kenny MacAskill's amendments. Although the problems being technical may make them seem unimportant, they are failings that would remove the protection that is offered by the bill. In removing the references to mental health officers, the amendments would exclude all such officers from the bill's protection. In carrying out duties under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, such officers act not as social workers, but as mental health officers. Kenny MacAskill's amendments would make no provision for such workers and would, in effect, remove the protection that was secured for them at stage 2. I am sure that is not what Kenny MacAskill intends; however, that would be the practical effect of his amendments.

Technical issues aside, I make it clear that I do not support amendments 15 and 16. I hope that, when he speaks, Kenny MacAskill will point out that the amendments are incompatible with each other. The Executive is clear that they are also incompatible with the bill's objectives. I have said that the bill is about protecting providers of emergency services. Common law, the Lord Advocate's guidance to procurators fiscal and our package of non-legislative measures will ensure that social workers who undertake any tasks in any other circumstances will be protected from verbal and physical assault. The bill highlights and seeks to address the particular problems that emergency workers face; undermining that deliberate aim would serve only to dilute the impact of this important legislation. For those reasons, the Executive does not support amendments 15 and 16.

I move amendment 7.

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party 3:45 pm, 22nd December 2004

I appreciate the minister's comments and accept that amendment 7 represents an advance. However, in pressing amendments 15 and 16, I point out that the devil is in the detail and that we are dealing with matters that will result in criminal prosecutions, that will be pored over by sheriffs and that will be argued by learned advocates and solicitors in courts throughout the land. As a result, we must get things as right as possible.

It is not enough simply to fall back on the argument that common law can already deal with such matters. Indeed, the arguments that have been made in response to my amendments were raised in the earlier discussion between the minister and my colleague Stewart Stevenson. The bill's purpose is to go beyond the common law. We do not subscribe to the Conservatives' view of the bill; we appreciate the logic in introducing legislation that will ensure that we try to change the culture and that makes it quite clear from the highest position in the land that certain behaviour is unacceptable. I say again that we do not accept the argument that, in respect of the bill's provisions, the catch-all provision exists in common law. The bill must add value to the current provisions and let us get to where we want to go, which is why we need to be specific about certain definitions. That is the purpose of amendments 15 and 16.

I accept that difficulties remain about how we specify matters. Amendment 15 seeks to broaden the bill's definition of emergency worker, and amendment 16 seeks to deepen it. I have listened to the points that have been made and acknowledge that the minister is taking matters substantially beyond the current situation; indeed, organisations, especially the Association of Directors of Social Work, welcome that. However, as Stewart Stevenson pointed out, social workers and those who act in a health care capacity still face significant problems. Not every emergency that a social worker goes into will fall within the current criteria. For example, they might have to act in response to a telephone call or other information and deal with a situation in which a warrant would not be required.

I appreciate that we need to find out how the legislation beds down and works in practice and I welcome the minister's earlier comment that the book is not closed as far as categories of emergency workers are concerned. However, some social workers have to deal with extremely difficult situations that might require a police escort. They will not be covered by the bill's provisions if, for example, that escort is not available and they are assaulted. I realise that the common law is available to procurators fiscal and sheriffs who have to deal with such offences. However, in moving amendments 15 and 16, I seek to put on record the various difficult circumstances that are faced by social workers—who often do not get the credit they deserve—and which should be covered by the bill. Although I welcome amendment 7, I will press my amendments.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

In calling Scott Barrie and Margaret Mitchell, I ask for short contributions.

Photo of Scott Barrie Scott Barrie Labour

I take that on board.

Kenny MacAskill is absolutely right to say that amendments 15 and 16 seek to broaden the bill's current definition. However, although child assessment orders under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 are part of the child protection system, they do not represent the emergency elements of it. Instead, they are seen as a means of gathering more information to ensure that direct emergency intervention is not needed.

In such a case, one seeks a child protection order via the sheriff. As Pauline McNeill said, we must be careful about the amendments that have been lodged by Stewart Stevenson. If the bill is about emergency workers in emergency situations, we need to hold on to that point firmly. I was previously a social worker, so I welcome the opportunity to acknowledge the hard work and difficult task of social workers, but we cannot say that social workers are acting in emergency situations when they do the work that is entailed under sections 53 and 55 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, or in some of the more routine work that they do.

If we agree to amendments such as those that have been lodged by Stewart Stevenson and Kenny MacAskill, other local authority colleagues who work in difficult situations—such as housing officers dealing with homeless families in emergency situations—will feel that they are being disadvantaged. The devil is in the detail, so we must be careful about broadening the scope of the bill too far so that we do not lose its main thrust.

Photo of Margaret Mitchell Margaret Mitchell Conservative

Amendment 7 is consequential on amendment 8, which seeks to extend child protection to cover authorisation situations. Amendments 15 and 16 cover NHS workers in the community and social workers responding to mental health situations. Those amendments seek to extend the bill to cover social workers going into situations that could flare up at a moment's notice. The bill is intended to have a deterrent effect, and I therefore do not believe that it is appropriate to make such amendments.

The British Association of Social Workers has questioned the added value that would be offered by the introduction of the legislation. I agree with Kenny MacAskill that it is not really enough to invoke common law. What is certainly required is a high-profile campaign to highlight the problems that some workers, including social workers, are facing, and to encourage members of the social work profession to believe that they should have safer working practices. Employers, politicians and society at large should be more aware of the fact that social workers face violent situations.

For those reasons, it is not appropriate to include amendments 15 and 16 in the bill, so we shall vote against them.

Photo of Tom McCabe Tom McCabe Labour

It is crucial that the bill provide the right level of protection to those who genuinely provide emergency services. We believe that the bill as amended at stage 2 and the Executive's additional amendment—amendment 8—will extend protection to social workers who are most likely to respond to emergency circumstances, as they are defined in the bill.

In the interests of time, I will not repeat the arguments that I made against Kenny MacAskill's amendments, but I stress again that we cannot support amendments 15 and 16. However, a decision today need not rule out the possibility of protecting a broader range of social workers in the future. The bill's order-making power means that social workers who undertake duties other than those relating to child protection orders and emergency protection authorisations can, at a future date, be added to the list of workers who will be protected by the bill, if a case is made for their inclusion.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The question is, that amendment 7, in the name of the minister, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 4

For: Adam, Brian, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baird, Shiona, Baker, Richard, Ballard, Mark, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kane, Rosie, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McFee, Mr Bruce, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morgan, Alasdair, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robison, Shona, Robson, Euan, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Aitken, Bill, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fraser, Murdo, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Johnstone, Alex, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Monteith, Mr Brian, Scanlon, Mary

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 88, Against 12, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

Amendment 15 moved—[Mr Kenny MacAskill].

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The question is, that amendment 15, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 5

For: Adam, Brian, Baird, Shiona, Ballard, Mark, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, McFee, Mr Bruce, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Fraser, Murdo, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Monteith, Mr Brian, 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, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Swinburne, John, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 31, Against 69, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 15 disagreed to.

Amendment 16 moved—[Mr Kenny MacAskill].

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The question is, that amendment 16, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 6

For: Adam, Brian, Baird, Shiona, Ballard, Mark, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, McFee, Mr Bruce, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Fraser, Murdo, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Monteith, Mr Brian, 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, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Swinburne, John, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 30, Against 70, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 16 disagreed to.

Amendment 8 moved—[Mr Tom McCabe].

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 7

For: Adam, Brian, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baird, Shiona, Baker, Richard, Ballard, Mark, Barrie, Scott, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kane, Rosie, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McFee, Mr Bruce, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morgan, Alasdair, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robison, Shona, Robson, Euan, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Aitken, Bill, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fraser, Murdo, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Johnstone, Alex, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Monteith, Mr Brian, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 89, Against 13, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 8 agreed to.