Business Motion

– in the Scottish Parliament at 4:48 pm on 23rd November 2005.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour 4:48 pm, 23rd November 2005

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S2M-3617, in the name of Margaret Curran, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme, and three amendments to the business motion. As it is somewhat unusual for there to be amendments to a business motion, I will explain how the procedure will work. The standing orders state that there can be only one speaker for and one speaker against a business motion and any amendment to that motion. In accordance with rule 8.11.3 of the standing orders, each speaker will be permitted to speak for a maximum of five minutes.

Photo of Margaret Curran Margaret Curran Labour 4:49 pm, 23rd November 2005

I will move the business motion but, as there are three amendments that call for a debate on the issue of asylum seekers, it is important that I lay out the context of this debate, so that the Parliament can make a decision. Members who were here earlier this afternoon will be aware that a request was made for a ministerial statement on the matter. The request was also made yesterday at the Parliamentary Bureau.

At the bureau meeting, I offered the Scottish Socialist Party a slot for a debate in which it could have discussed anything that it wanted to discuss. On the Tuesday it refused that slot, but on the Wednesday it wants a debate and I am being asked to disrupt parliamentary business on the basis of an allegation against the First Minister and the work of the Executive that has no substance whatever. In fact, as the Presiding Officer emphasised earlier, members have opportunities to question the work of the First Minister and ministers at First Minister's question time and question time respectively, which are programmed into our business every week.

I appreciate and acknowledge the Parliament's interest in these matters and recognise that it has expressed a view that endorses the work of the Executive and the First Minister's comments. That work continues. Disrupting parliamentary business is unnecessary and I urge members to support the business motion.

Substantial work has been undertaken since the Parliament first passed the motion on the children of asylum seekers. The First Minister has made clear the results of that work and it has been regularly indicated that on-going discussions will be brought before the Parliament.

I agree with the Presiding Officer that these matters are significant, which is why it is inappropriate to disrupt business in such a manner. The Executive will bring information to the Parliament when that is appropriate, as we have always said that we would. The Parliament has opportunities to question and clarify—there are appropriate slots for doing so. Disrupting business is not the proper way to proceed.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees the following programme of business— Wednesday 30 November 2005

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 1 Debate: Human Tissue (Scotland) Bill followed by Business Motion followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 1 December 2005

9.15 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Executive Debate: Ambitious Excellent Schools - One Year On

11.40 am General Question Time 12 noon First Minister's Question Time

2.15 pm Themed Question Time— Finance and Public Services and Communities; Education and Young People; Tourism, Culture and Sport

2.55 pm Executive Debate: Sea Fisheries followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Wednesday 7 December 2005

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Executive Business followed by Business Motion followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 8 December 2005

9.15 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Executive Business

11.40 am General Question Time 12 noon First Minister's Question Time

2.15 pm Themed Question Time— Health and Community Care; Environment and Rural Development

2.55 pm Executive Business followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business.

Photo of Bill Aitken Bill Aitken Conservative 4:51 pm, 23rd November 2005

Let me make it clear at the outset why the Conservative group thought it necessary to seek to amend the business motion. Asylum is generally an emotive and difficult issue and there has been a public debate in Scotland in which emotions have run high. However, we have never deviated from the view that once the appeals procedure has been exhausted, those who have failed to satisfy the Home Office as to the validity of their asylum application must be returned to their country of origin. There are concerns about the methodology that is used and other concerns that the Conservatives have previously articulated about the ludicrously long time that it takes to determine asylum cases, which is by any standard unfair to applicants, their families and the wider community.

However, that is not the principal issue—the real issue is the First Minister's credibility. This is the third time in the past 14 months that Jack McConnell has been snubbed by Whitehall. First, his much-vaunted fresh talent programme turned out to be simply a Westminster-based pilot scheme. Then he promised a specific Scottish measure to deal with air-guns, but he was given only a registration of retailers that applied to the whole of the United Kingdom. Finally, the answer that he gave in the chamber last week, in which he said that he was in discussions with the Home Office about an asylum protocol and that he hoped to

"progress towards the right conclusion",—[Official Report, 17 November 2005; c 20859.]

has received a humiliating rebuff from London.

Those episodes question the very credibility of the First Minister and reveal his lack of influence with his Labour colleagues in the UK Government. He is either trying to punch above his weight and grandstand on reserved issues or attempting to step into the vacuum of inactivity on reserved measures with an impact on Scotland that has been created by the uninterested Secretary of State for Scotland, Alistair Darling. Let us make it clear that such ineffectiveness harms devolution, hurts the union and plays into the hands of separatists. Whether the First Minister is a pawn in a Whitehall farce or the intended target of Home Office ridicule is not the point. His lack of stature and standing—and, by association, that of the Parliament as an institution—is damning in the extreme. It is humiliating that the First Minister of Scotland should be the subject of such a dismissive approach by the previously unheard-of Minister of State for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality, Tony McNulty.

It will be interesting to see how the Liberals vote this afternoon, bearing in mind what Nicol Stephen said on 27 October and what the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, Robert Brown, said only a few weeks ago in reply to a Green-sponsored debate in which the Executive's amendment undertook to convey to the Home Office the widespread concerns about dawn raids. It is now claimed that dawn raids have not even been discussed with the Home Office, which has made it clear that they will continue.

The First Minister has been caught out again. When the Scottish National Party conference was meeting on the eve of the debate, he attempted to get out of a political hole by committing himself to providing a Scottish solution to a Scottish problem. He has failed spectacularly to deliver. The Parliament must have an early opportunity to debate the matter in the light of the humiliating rebuff that the First Minister has received from his Labour colleagues at Westminster.

We have not sought lightly to change parliamentary business. We appreciate that our amendment seeks to remove an education debate of considerable importance from the business programme. However, what is surely of even greater importance is the Parliament's standing in the United Kingdom constitution, the First Minister's personal credibility and the fact that he is seen as a political pygmy by those at Westminster who have scant regard for the deliberations of this Parliament. The Parliament must debate the matter at the earliest opportunity and make a determination on it.

I move amendment S2M-3617.1, to leave out

"followed by Executive Debate: Ambitious Excellent Schools - One Year On" and insert

"followed by Executive Debate: Protocol between Scottish Executive and UK Government on Treatment of Asylum Seekers".

Photo of Chris Ballance Chris Ballance Green 4:56 pm, 23rd November 2005

For two months now, the Parliament has heard repeated assurances from the First Minister about his desire for a protocol with the Home Office to govern the operation of enforcement home visits, which are otherwise known as dawn raids. The issue has been raised by many members, but it has also been the subject of broad public debate for longer than we have been discussing it here.

The notion of a protocol was raised not by campaigners or by Opposition parties but by the First Minister who, on 29 September, said that the Home Secretary agreed with his idea. The First Minister told us of the need to ensure that the asylum system operates humanely. That is the principle with which all those who feel strongly about the matter can agree. We might have our different views about what the asylum rules ought to be, but we all agree that the inhumane operation of the system cannot be tolerated and that unannounced dawn raids are—to borrow just three of the phrases used by ministers over the past two months—heavy handed, over the top and completely unacceptable. That is why so many people in Scotland welcomed the First Minister's commitment to put the protocol into place.

The Executive tells us today that its position has not changed, but it takes two to tango. The establishment of a protocol might remain the goal of the Executive, but the Home Office has ruled it out clearly and finally. Whatever it does throughout the UK, the Home Office will not recognise the distinctive child protection mechanisms in Scotland, the responsibilities of the Executive or the First Minister's call for a protocol—in short, it will not recognise the devolution settlement.

Margaret Curran was right when she said this morning that members of the Executive parties have expressed concerns. Indeed, many of them have worked for years in the interests of refugees and asylum seekers in Scotland. I say to those Labour and Liberal Democrat members—

Photo of Chris Ballance Chris Ballance Green

Mr Rumbles's First Minister stuck his neck out on the issue of dawn raids. His Deputy First Minister and fellow ministers backed the First Minister on that and 22 Executive party members supported them by signing the motions that were lodged by Patrick Harvie, Bill Butler, Michael McMahon and Sandra White. Cannot those members see that if they now refuse to debate the snub that has been issued by the Home Office, they will be seen by the whole of Scotland as members of a doormat Parliament? If they agree to our amendment to the business motion, the debate on the removal of asylum seekers will give Jack McConnell and Nicol Stephen an opportunity to acquit themselves well and to explain not only what the Executive's position is and whether it remains the same in the face of the changing circumstances but what the Home Office's position is.

Two months ago, the First Minister acknowledged the constructive tone with which the Greens brought the issue to the chamber. I hope that members of all parties will acknowledge the patience and persistence with which we have pressed the issue since then. In that spirit, I ask members to remember that the Executive's acknowledged responsibilities for the welfare and protection of the children of asylum seekers have not gone away. We need the debate urgently, to allow the Executive to explain how it will now seek to discharge that responsibility following the announcement by the Home Office this week. I urge all members to back my amendment.

I move amendment S2M-3617.2, under Wednesday 30 November 2005, after

"2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions" to insert,

"followed by Executive Debate: Removal of Asylum Seekers".

Photo of Colin Fox Colin Fox SSP 5:01 pm, 23rd November 2005

I lodged my amendment to the business motion because the Parliament needs the fullest and earliest opportunity to discuss the important issues that arise from yesterday's announcement by the Home Office regarding the non-existent protocol over the forced removal of asylum seekers and their children in dawn raids. There can surely be no one in the chamber who does not believe that the First Minister owes us a full and thorough explanation of events and of the opposing views that we have been offered by him and by the immigration and nationality directorate.

I am disappointed that the Minister for Parliamentary Business, Margaret Curran, does not accept that point. She is failing in her duty to the Parliament by not acknowledging that that debate should take place. Rather than slating the Scottish Socialist Party, she should understand that it is the Executive, not the Scottish Socialist Party, that has questions to answer about the matter. She should be making proposals for the Parliament to discuss the matter thoroughly in due course. It does her case no good to refer to the completely separate matter of her offer to the Scottish Socialist Party, at one day's notice, of a debate in eight days' time—and she has not yet even returned our phone call on that. I remind her that it is the Executive that has responsibility for the matter.

Photo of Colin Fox Colin Fox SSP

I will take an intervention. It might make members listen for once.

Photo of Margo MacDonald Margo MacDonald Independent

Most members know that I was in favour of a quick resolution, if at all possible, of the dilemma that we are now in. However, does Colin Fox agree that this is merely another instance of what many of us expected, which is that the concordat that was supposed to guide the co-operative working between this Parliament and Westminster would not be worth the paper that it was written on? Does he agree that we therefore need a much wider examination of how it should work?

Photo of Colin Fox Colin Fox SSP

I agree with Margo MacDonald's point of view. As the minister knows, and as the Deputy First Minister has said, members on these benches did not think much of the proposed protocol in the first place.

Given the gravity of the situation, the concerns of the people of Scotland about forced removals in dawn raids and the detrimental effect that those removals are having on communities across Scotland and on our international reputation, it is simply not good enough to say that a couple of sentences from the First Minister tomorrow will be sufficient. The business for tomorrow had already been agreed and the Parliament needs to have a full opportunity to discuss these important matters as soon as possible.

The First Minister assured Parliament two months ago, and has repeated on several occasions, that there would be a new role for those dealing with asylum seekers and a change to the disgraceful situation in which we see the brutal, forced removal of children. He is on record as saying that education and social services must be fully informed in advance of any forced removal.

The First Minister must explain why there is no protocol. If there was one, what happened to it? If there is not one, why did he say repeatedly that there was? He must explain why it takes officials from London to come up here and give an off-the-record briefing to bring to an end the pantomime that he has been acting out for the past two months.

The First Minister must give assurances to the Parliament that education and social services would be informed in advance of any forced removal. What grounds does he have for suggesting that that proposal will be taken up not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom? Above all, the First Minister must answer this question: how many more 13-year-old girls must be dragged from their bed in tears in the dead of night and slammed in the back of a van before change occurs? Forced removals are happening at the rate of four a week. Those are the questions that the Parliament deserves to have answered.

I move amendment S2M-3617.3, after

"followed by Stage 1 Debate: Human Tissue (Scotland) Bill" to insert

"followed by Executive Debate: Removal of Asylum Seekers"

Photo of Linda Fabiani Linda Fabiani Scottish National Party 5:06 pm, 23rd November 2005

On behalf of the SNP, I speak to oppose the business motion. We believe whole-heartedly that a debate is now necessary, especially after what we have heard earlier in the afternoon and this evening. The confusion on the issue is now immense. The First Minister has said that the Home Office briefing is cack-handed.

I would like to talk about the substance of the matter, which we have discussed before. The First Minister stated that he wants

"to ensure that we in Scotland have a regime that ensures not only that there is consistent application of immigration and asylum rules but that the system operates humanely."—[Official Report, 29 September 2005; c 19655.]

Nicol Stephen stated:

"We want asylum seekers in this country—particularly in cases in which children are involved—to be treated with dignity, respect and fairness when they require to be removed from the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 27 October 2005; c 20096.]

The Executive's amendment at the debate on the matter stated that the Executive would

"convey to the Home Office the widespread concerns about practices such as so-called 'dawn raids', handcuffing of children, and the removal of children by large groups of officers in uniform and body armour."

I think that everyone in the Parliament agrees that those practices mean that people are not treated with dignity, respect and fairness. Malcolm Chisholm said during the debate that what was happening was "absolutely appalling." It seems to me that we all want the same thing, despite the spin that Executive ministers have been putting on what exactly the protocol means. We all want the practices to stop, because such treatment offends us and it offends the people against whom it is meted out; it offends those who have come to care for those people in their community and it offends everyone who has dignity.

Let us have a debate. I ask the First Minister to accept one of the amendments that have been moved to allow us to have the debate in which he can reiterate his true views and feelings about what is happening. I also believe that if we have an unequivocal pledge from the First Minister, not in the rammy that is First Minister's question time but during a structured debate, the Parliament will come behind him and say that it is pleased that he is taking a stand and saying to the Home Office, "This is not acceptable in our country. You have no alternative but to stop it and to deal with this." The First Minister would have behind him not just the Parliament but civic Scotland, including all the voluntary groups and the professionals who work every day with the people who are being treated in this way and see the sorrow that is caused. He would also have behind him the general population of this country, because we all want to know that Scotland stands for dignity, respect and fairness. We want our First Minister, with the backing of the Parliament, to go down to the Home Office and tell it that that is how Scotland is going to be.

Photo of Margaret Curran Margaret Curran Labour 5:09 pm, 23rd November 2005

I repeat that there is no change in Scottish Executive policy. The position that the First Minister has outlined week after week at First Minister's question time remains the same. I speak on behalf of the Executive when I say that we will take no lessons on our commitment to asylum seekers and refugees in this country. The Executive has delivered substantial funding packages to support the integration of asylum seekers and refugees and has been given credit by many organisations throughout Scotland for undertaking that work. We are supporting first-class work on integration in schools. Glasgow City Council, two of whose former leaders sit on the partnership benches, has led the field in Scotland on asylum seekers.

Members and ministers in the Executive have a consistent and on-going track record on such matters. The First Minister has been considering them for some considerable time and has examined how the concerns of schoolchildren can be pursued. He and the Executive are working to establish an effective role for education and social work services in addressing those issues. As I say, that work is continuing and will be reported on as appropriate. The Executive will remain focused and will not be distracted. The practical results of our work are what matters—they are what we should focus on.

This afternoon, we have seen evidence of a truly unholy alliance in the Parliament. It would appear that the Scottish Socialist Party does not believe in having any immigration controls at all and does not feel obliged to care about any of the consequences of that policy. We know that the Scottish National Party wants to have a set of border controls between England and Scotland; I am not sure what other immigration controls it wants. As for the Tories, what a confused bunch they are. I know that they are debating their political direction, but an alliance between them and the Trots on immigration, which is a reserved issue, is truly breathtaking. They are also lining up with the Greens and the nationalists. Although I often listen to what the Green party has to say on such matters, I was distressed by Chris Ballance's implication that if improvements are made in the situation for kids in England, that is of no interest at all to us.

Let me be clear about the Executive's priority—it is kids not constitutions that matter to us. Our focus is on the practical improvements that we will bring about in the circumstances of those children to whom the First Minister has drawn attention. We will not be distracted by amendments to the business motion. We repeat that work on asylum seekers and refugees is on-going. Rather than playing around with parliamentary business motions, people should take note of the Executive's dedication. Let us get on with our work by supporting the business motion.

Photo of George Reid George Reid None

The question is, that amendment S2M-3617.1, in the name of Annabel Goldie, which seeks to amend business motion S2M-3617, in the name of Margaret Curran, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 1

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brownlee, Derek, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Curran, Frances, Davidson, Mr David, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, White, Ms Sandra
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, 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, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, 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, Robson, Euan, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinburne, John, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Rumbles, Mike

Photo of George Reid George Reid None

The result of the division is: For 50, Against 65, Abstentions 1.

Amendment disagreed to.

Photo of George Reid George Reid None

The second question is, that amendment S2M-3617.2, in the name of Chris Ballance, which seeks to amend business motion S2M-3617, in the name of Margaret Curran, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 2

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brownlee, Derek, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Curran, Frances, Davidson, Mr David, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gibson, Rob, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, White, Ms Sandra
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, 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, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, 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, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of George Reid George Reid None

The result of the division is: For 51, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment disagreed to.

Photo of George Reid George Reid None

The third question is, that amendment S2M-3617.3, in the name of Carolyn Leckie, which seeks to amend business motion S2M-3617, in the name of Margaret Curran, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 3

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brownlee, Derek, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Curran, Frances, Davidson, Mr David, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gibson, Rob, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, White, Ms Sandra
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, 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, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, 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, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of George Reid George Reid None

The result of the division is: For 51, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment disagreed to.

Photo of George Reid George Reid None

The fourth question is, that business motion S2M-3617, in the name of Margaret Curran, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 4

For: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, 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, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, 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, Robson, Euan, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brownlee, Derek, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Curran, Frances, Davidson, Mr David, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, White, Ms Sandra
Abstentions: Rumbles, Mike

Photo of George Reid George Reid None

The result of the division is: For 65, Against 51, Abstentions 1.

Motion agreed to.

That the Parliament agrees the following programme of business— Wednesday 30 November 2005

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 1 Debate: Human Tissue (Scotland) Bill followed by Business Motion followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 1 December 2005

9.15 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Executive Debate: Ambitious Excellent Schools - One Year On

11.40 am General Question Time 12 noon First Minister's Question Time

2.15 pm Themed Question Time— Finance and Public Services and Communities; Education and Young People; Tourism, Culture and Sport

2.55 pm Executive Debate: Sea Fisheries followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Wednesday 7 December 2005

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Executive Business followed by Business Motion followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 8 December 2005

9.15 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Executive Business

11.40 am General Question Time 12 noon First Minister's Question Time

2.15 pm Themed Question Time— Health and Community Care; Environment and Rural Development

2.55 pm Executive Business followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business.