We need your support to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can continue to hold their elected representatives to account.Donate to our crowdfunder
The tail docking of dogs has been one of the most controversial issues in the bill. Robust and passionate views are held and have been expressed both by those who support a total ban and by those who wish to see an exemption for working dogs.
Before I speak to amendment 30, I will explain why I am asking Parliament to reject the other amendments in the group that have been lodged by Ted Brocklebank and Andrew Arbuckle. Section 18 prohibits mutilations except those that are permitted by regulations. It would be quite inappropriate to single out any one mutilation and legislate for it on the face of the bill. If we were to deal with the tail docking of dogs in primary legislation, it would be logical to deal with all permitted mutilations in a similar way. Section 18 will not be enacted until the regulations allowing exemptions have been drafted, consulted on and approved by Parliament. That means that no final decision will be taken on the tail docking of dogs until the regulations are completed.
Let me finish the point.
I do not believe that an exemption should be made for working dogs but, if those who argue for such an exemption are able to present persuasive evidence supporting their case, their evidence will be given full consideration when we frame the extent of the exemptions. However, the time to do that will be during the consultation on the draft regulations.
The regulations will deal with a range of exemptions, including agricultural exemptions. The regulations will be discussed and will come back to Parliament following the passing of the bill. I make that absolutely clear.
During stage 2, I said that I was not convinced that the case for an exemption for working dogs had been made. The Environment and Rural Development Committee took that view in its stage 1 report and in its consideration of the issue at stage 2. I know that there are concerns that dogs working in thick cover or confined spaces will be prone to tail damage. I assure members that I do not want dogs to be injured. If I thought that a comprehensive ban would result in poorer animal welfare standards and cause increased suffering, I would not support it, but I do not think that a ban will do that. I appreciate that there are difficulties in collecting evidence on tail damage in working dogs and that there is a lack of scientific studies on the subject, but there is currently no convincing evidence that prophylactic docking in working dogs reduces tail injuries. Such evidence may come to light before the regulations that provide exemptions under section 18 are framed. If it is robust veterinary evidence, we will listen to it with interest.
I have received a number of letters from rural vets who consider that tail docking should be continued for humanitarian purposes. Is the minister suggesting that those who own and keep working dogs and who currently have their tails shortened to save them from injury do so in order to increase poor animal welfare practice and not to guarantee animal welfare? My experience is that they undertake the procedure to guarantee the future welfare of the animals in their ownership.
We need to hear points of that kind. I said that if there is robust veterinary evidence, we will listen to it with interest when the regulations are discussed. We give that assurance today.
I know that concern has been expressed that a difference in policy on either side of the Scotland-England border could lead to the cross-border trafficking of animals from Scotland to England to undertake a prohibited procedure. The concern about dogs being transported to England does not apply only to working dogs, because dogs could be transported to Ireland for cosmetic docking. I do not consider that such a situation would be acceptable, which is why amendment 30 has been lodged. It will help to ensure that there is no docking tourism between Scotland and England
I move amendment 30.
I will speak to amendments 4, 12A and 12B. I make absolutely no apologies for deploring the minister's volte-face in relation to exempting working dogs from the tail-shortening provisions of the bill. Like virtually everyone with experience of field sports and like our Westminster counterparts, who seem to have a clearer grasp of rural affairs than we in Scotland have, I believe that the minister's decision is perverse and misguided and could inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on working dogs—the reverse of what Mr Finnie claims the bill will achieve. It is also illogical, as lambs and pigs will still be able to have their tails and testicles removed without anaesthetic simply by having a rubber band placed around those parts. However, under the bill, puppies less than five days old will be unable to have their tails shortened safely and surgically for future welfare purposes.
The minister regularly quotes the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' view that tail shortening is unnecessary. The RCVS is entitled to its view, but so are the dozens of country vets who have written to me pleading that I emphasise their view that the RCVS is plain wrong. Rural vets are aware that the Royal (Dick) veterinary school submitted that in the dogs that it surveyed it found no evidence that shortening prevents injury, but we were not told how many working dogs were included in that survey.
We have also heard that dogs somehow lose part of their dogginess if the bottom thirds of their tails are removed and that somehow they can no longer express happiness by wagging their tails. The nonsense of that argument could easily be seen at lunch time, when dozens of dogs with shortened tails demonstrated their dogginess—and, indeed, their wagginess—outside Parliament.
That brings me to my major criticism of the decision not to exempt working dogs from the ban. When so much more important legislation is required from this place, why do we concern ourselves with poking into matters that are outside the experience of most members?
Why cannot we trust those who have bred and operated working dogs for many decades to look after their welfare in a humane and appropriate manner? It beggars belief that owners of working dogs would expose them to unnecessary suffering. Why do politicians
Does Mr Brocklebank accept that although many members may be prepared to support what he is trying to achieve, the way that he is going about it and his invective are, frankly, damaging his case?
That, of course, is entirely up to Bruce Crawford. All I can do is present my argument as I think it should be presented.
The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development claims that it might be possible to amend regulations at some future date if the ban results in increased tail damage. However, why should our working dogs be condemned to suffer until ministers are possibly forced to change their mind, especially when injury to adult dogs resulting in amputation is known to require expensive and extensive surgery?
Andrew Arbuckle's amendment 12 is similar to mine, which is surprising, given that he and the Minister for Environment and Rural Development ostensibly belong to the same party. Amendment 12 includes the proposal that dogs whose tails are docked after the bill's commencement day should not be allowed entry into Scottish dog shows. I presume that the intention is to ensure that only working dogs and not breeding dogs are exempt from the ban. However, such pettifogging is as illiberal as it is unworkable. How on earth would the authorities know whether a show entrant's tail had been shortened the day after or the day before the commencement day?
The minister's amendment 30 proposes that it will be an offence to take
"a protected animal ... for the purpose of having a prohibited procedure carried out ... at a place outwith Scotland."
Perhaps the minister or the deputy minister will explain how that will be policed. In the case of working dogs, how will the authorities decide what the purpose is of taking a litter of pups across the border? They might be en route to a new owner because of a perfectly legal sale. Or are Scottish working dogs to be ineligible for sale in England? How about the sale and transport of a pregnant springer bitch across the border into England? If her puppies have their tails shortened in England and they are sold back into Scotland, where will the offence lie? Again, not only is amendment 30 illogical, but it is totally unworkable. It seems geared to create confusion among the relevant authorities.
There has been considerable confusion during consideration of the bill over the tail docking of working dogs. The purpose of my amendment
The bill as it stands will put in place a blanket ban on all tail docking. However, I welcome the Executive's intention to produce subordinate legislation that will introduce exemptions to the ban to allow traditional farm practices such as the removal of lambs' tails and the castration of calves to continue. I inform Ted Brocklebank that I used to be involved in such farm practices and I still have one castration band left.
Given the minister's commitment to exempting such farm practices from the ban, I welcome her firm assurance that there will be a full and proper consultation on the issue of tail docking for working dogs. I am pleased that the minister has confirmed that those who support an exemption for working dogs will have the opportunity to present evidence to support their case. I welcome the minister's assurance to me that evidence will be considered in detail and that no final decision to ban tail docking for working dogs will be made until all the evidence has been considered. The minister has confirmed that if the case is made for an exemption for working dogs, the exemption could be achieved through subordinate legislation.
The bill is wide ranging and positive, and it should not become a bill on tail docking. I will not move amendment 12 and I will vote against Ted Brocklebank's amendments. Those who are in favour of allowing the tail docking of working dogs made a strong case that was based on robust evidence and it is right and proper that that issue should be considered in the same order that will provide exemptions for traditional farm practices. One lobbying postcard depicted a gun dog with a bloody tail. If that injury was caused during the dog's work, I hope that the evidence, together with other concrete evidence, will be brought forward. Historically tails have been docked so such evidence will not often be available, but examples would be welcome and are needed.
Members have pointed out that docking is not a sadistic measure; that it involves a cost; that it is not undertaken lightly; that it is not done for cosmetic reasons; and that it may be considered by some outsiders to be a tradition that should be done away with. However, the best way forward over the coming months will be for the minister to be provided with the information that will allow the current practice to continue. We must encourage those with a direct interest in the practice, and
I am pleased to speak in this debate. I am the convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on animal welfare, which has had extensive debates on the issue. Having considered all the arguments, I find it difficult to move away from the view of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. That view is based on the experience and professional expertise of the British Veterinary Association and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association.
The Scottish Kennel Club has argued that undocked tails on working dogs will lead to injury—and not just to single amputations but to multiple amputations. It sounds very bad. However, the SSPCA points out what has happened in other countries in which the practice has been stopped. In one study, there are records from 10 clinics in 1996, covering a period before and after a ban on tail docking. The study found that, among 70,000 dogs that were treated in one year, there were only 26 incidents of tail injuries. That represents a rate of 3.7 tail injuries per 10,000 dogs, which is very low. The SSPCA considers that, although working dogs can and do injure their tails, the vast majority of those injuries are minor and can be treated by veterinary surgeons. Many significant advances have been made with such treatment.
The minister and others have said that, through subordinate legislation, it will be possible for the issue to be considered again. If evidence from veterinary surgeons shows that amputations are taking place, we can consider the issue again. I therefore do not see the problem and I implore members to reject amendments 11 and 12 in the name of Andrew Arbuckle, and amendments 4, 12A and 12B in the name of Ted Brocklebank.
It is very important that members listen carefully and pay attention to all the information that is conveyed to us by external organisations representing a broad cross-section of opinion; that we consider such information dispassionately; that we reflect on it; and that we are driven by the evidence that we are presented with. I am enormously sympathetic to the arguments of Ted Brocklebank and Andrew Arbuckle, but I found the manner of Ted Brocklebank's speech singularly unconvincing. On questions to which the party politics of the chamber do not apply, we do not advance our
The minister has rested heavily on the arguments of the veterinary sector, but it strikes me that there is no uniform opinion in the veterinary sector. Opinions are divided and we should reflect on that. There is no single absolute opinion that should drive us towards a particular policy decision. I have seen convincing evidence to suggest that, if we ban tail docking at an early stage in an animal's life, we may inflict hardship and pain on the animal at a later stage.
One of the reasons why we have to give careful consideration to the issue is that the Executive has changed its policy position during the progress of the bill. Previously, it said to people in our constituencies that there would be an exemption for tail docking, but the minister now tells us that there will be no exemption for tail docking unless there is another discussion in the consultation exercise on subordinate legislation.
Our duty is to pass a bill and scrutinise it properly, not to defer a decision to subordinate legislation that will be presented to us on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. This is our opportunity to structure the legislation in a fashion that we believe reflects the priorities and the choices that we want to make. Although that may, at this stage in the debate, single out tail docking from the other issues that will be considered in secondary legislation, it would be a sensible insurance policy for the Parliament to take out, because the Government has changed its position dramatically during the process.
Although we adjusted our position in the light of the committee's stage 1 report, the structure of the bill would always have been as it is. There would have been a ban on all mutilations. Even if there had been exemptions, they would always—as proposed by the Government—have been contained in secondary legislation.
I take the minister's point, but I ask him to respect my view that if the Government has changed its policy position, which it has undeniably done in the course of the bill's progress, passing the amendments that are before us today would be a sensible insurance policy for the Parliament to take out. If I have to choose between Ted Brocklebank's amendments and Andrew Arbuckle's amendments, I will support Andrew Arbuckle's amendments. Andrew Arbuckle
I have a question on cross-border traffic, which I hope that the minister will answer when she sums up. Will it be legitimate for an individual to sell a working dog in Scotland to a breeder in England, for the tail to be docked there and the dog to be sold back to the breeder in Scotland? Will that be legal? My reading of amendment 30, which the minister asks us to support, is that that practice would be entirely legal, which would defeat the purpose of the amendment. We should be in the business of passing good legislation, not flawed legislation.
This is an animal welfare bill. The docking of puppies' tails in infancy is an animal welfare measure, which is designed to stop dogs such as spaniels going through excruciating agony in later life if they injure their tails when working in thick undergrowth and brambles or elsewhere. Dogs are docked for the avoidance of tail injuries. As anyone who knows about dog injuries will tell us, a tail injury is one of the most painful things that a dog can suffer and it is one of the most difficult injuries to heal.
I used to work and breed springer spaniels. They are the most loyal and courageous of breeds and are great companions. I would sooner cut off my own hand than deliberately cause injury or pain to one of my dogs. Most dog owners feel the same way, which is why we dock tails. I was always present when my spaniel puppies were docked. I never saw any reaction at the time or ill-effects later on. The tails are docked for the avoidance of future tail injury.
I wrote to Mr Finnie on March 15. He acknowledged in his reply that spaniels can endure split and broken tails when they work in thick undergrowth. His reason for deciding that he would no longer introduce an exemption for working dogs seems to be that breeds such as collies would come under the same exemption. However, I am sure that he knows—as most people do—that no one docks collie dogs. They work in open fields, so there is no reason to dock their tails.
Hang on a minute.
Ironically, every ewe and lamb that the collies are rounding up is docked as a welfare measure. Surely it would be disgraceful to fail to exempt certain breeds such as spaniels, which need to be docked as a welfare measure, because a way cannot be found to write the correct words in a bill. Our actions in the Parliament would allow dogs to
Right here in Scotland, we have the best working springer bloodlines of anywhere in the world. If docking is disallowed, we will lose those bloodlines to England, where breeders will still be able to dock. I beseech members not to disallow docking for working dogs. I beseech members to support Ted Brocklebank's amendment 4.
I ask members to support amendment 30 in the name of the minister and to reject all the other amendments in the group, including those in the name of the minister's Liberal Democrat back-bench colleague. Those other amendments were lodged to create an exemption to the ban on tail docking and to reopen arguments that the committee rejected comprehensively at stage 2. Throughout the debate on tail docking, I have said that we should not enshrine illogical traditions into 21 st century Scots law. Tail docking is an illogical tradition: indeed, it is recognised as such by the British Veterinary Association, the BSAVA and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. It is completely inappropriate and unrealistic of Ted Brocklebank to simply dismiss members of those prestigious bodies as a bunch of townie vets.
Not even the people who are pro tail docking can accurately define which working dogs would benefit physiologically from having their tail docked. There is inconsistency across the working breed standards: cocker and springer spaniels have their tails docked, whereas Irish water spaniels do not; and German pointers have docked tails, whereas English pointers do not. The SSPCA told us that one of the breeds that suffers the greatest number of tail injuries is the Labrador and yet that breed has never had its tail docked. Frankly, the idea of a tail-docked Labrador is faintly ridiculous. The committee and the Executive have got it right in this case.
I say to John Swinney that there has been parliamentary scrutiny. The Environment and Rural Development Committee considered all the evidence and came to the conclusion that the right way forward is to have a monitorable ban. Putting in place an exemption would simply create an unworkable mess. When a puppy is only a couple of days old, how can anyone tell whether it is suitable to become a working dog? How would we get round the situation that the loophole would create, whereby a dog breeder could apply for a gun licence or a shooting club membership card simply to be able to routinely dock the tails of the dogs that they breed for sale? We simply cannot introduce an exemption.
Amendment 30 will close the loophole whereby people could have taken their dogs down south to have their tails docked. Ted Brocklebank does not understand the point that is at issue in that regard. If he had examined the debate at Westminster, as he urged us to do, he would know that the exemption that the English bill proposes means that people who take their dogs to the vet to have their tails docked will require to have the dog microchipped with their name and address as part of the registration. That provision provides a pretty solid basis for any line of inquiry in the case of someone who takes their dog down south to have its tail docked. The minister's amendment 30 is robust.
A full monitorable ban is the right approach for us to take—it is the logical approach. I urge members to support amendment 30 and to reject all the other amendments in the group.
I remind members that much of the animal welfare legislation under which we operate is something like 100 years old. It is likely that the provisions of the bill that we are debating will have to last for 20, 30, 50 or more years. The bill has been framed as enabling legislation; it has a total ban on mutilations, but provides the flexibility for the Government to introduce exemptions by way of secondary legislation as and when people's idea of what is acceptable and unacceptable changes over time. Whatever the answer to the question that has been posed in the debate whether there should—or should not—be tail docking, the right way to act is by secondary legislation. We should make our decision at the same time that we introduce the other exemptions to the total ban on mutilation.
Mutilating an animal by chopping off part of its body is a fairly extreme thing to do. Having duly considered all the aspects, someone should be able to make a really good justification of the practice on animal welfare grounds. The committee had no doubts about the sincerity of the people with experience of working dogs who told us that they genuinely believe that dogs are liable to incur painful injuries if their tails are not docked. However, we had difficulty because common practice is not necessarily good practice. Although working dogs' tails are routinely docked, we do not have incontrovertible evidence that there will be a significant increase in tail injuries among working dogs if docking is discontinued.
In a minute.
I ask the Executive immediately and proactively to establish a baseline on the incidence of tail injuries among working dogs, so that we can measure the evidence against that baseline. If it
I want to express caution about section 18. It is well intentioned, but I have yet to be convinced that it makes sense and I cannot be convinced until I know much more about the exemptions that are proposed by the Executive—I hope that we will hear more on exemptions from the minister. I am also increasingly worried about the perception of the Scottish Parliament in parts of Scotland, where we have a reputation for rushing into legislation. We need to be a little careful about matters such as the one we are debating.
For the avoidance of doubt, I will say that the mutilation of animals for cosmetic purposes is abhorrent, wrong and surely a contravention of the ethical standards of the veterinary profession. However, there can be good animal welfare reasons for surgery on some animals in some circumstances. It can be necessary to take the dew claws off dogs. It is necessary to dehorn cattle and to castrate some farm and domestic animals, and anyone who has seen a sheep struck down by maggots will testify to the need to dock the tails of lambs.
I understand that some breeds of dog, when they are used for specific and legitimate purposes, are at genuine risk of significant injuries if their tails are not docked. If that is the case, and only in specific circumstances, professional veterinary surgeons should be allowed to carry out tail docking, subject to the rules and ethical standards of their profession. We should expect the profession to set and enforce strict standards.
Probably all members have received many representations from people who call for a ban on tail docking, many of which have been inspired by well-organised pressure groups. Some of us have received a similar number of representations from people who support the other side of the argument. However, a national Parliament must resist the urge to do what campaign groups and lobbyists tell it to do. Our duty is to do what we think is right for Scotland. Cosmetic tail docking is wrong, but I am not convinced that a blanket legislative ban is the right way to deal with the problem.
I was considering voting for Ted Brocklebank's amendment 4 until I heard his speech, which I do not think was intended to attract support—I will bear that in mind. I remain uneasy about simply giving the Executive powers to make regulations. However, I welcome the minister's intention to make regulations on exemptions and I hope that she will say more about the exemptions that the
It might surprise members who remember my role in the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill to hear that I support the amendments that would exempt working dogs from the ban on tail docking.
I grew up in a family that kept working dogs. My father had springer spaniels, which went to the gun. He used to cut off the puppies' tails when they were only hours old. The procedure was necessary then and it is necessary now, to prevent future injuries.
The minister has told the Parliament that the issue will be considered at some time in the future and dealt with through regulations. However, the minister well knows that, when the Parliament considers regulations, we cannot amend them. Even if the minister decided not to include tail docking in the regulations, members would not have the opportunity to amend them. The minister has a duty, in summing up, to say whether she is for or against tail docking.
Executive amendment 30, which would make it an offence to take an animal out of Scotland for tail docking, is totally illogical, for the reasons that other members have outlined. The minister has a duty to answer John Swinney's question about whether an animal that is sold could be sold back once its tail had been docked. It is important that the Parliament legislates on animal welfare matters—that is not, as Ted Brocklebank said, a waste of time. We all have a duty to consider animal welfare. The bill is a good one, but it could be better. I ask members to think carefully about how they vote on the amendments.
I want to be absolutely clear that it is not appropriate to single out any one mutilation and legislate on it through the bill. We will not do that. I also want to be clear that section 18 will not come into force until the regulations that allow exemptions have been drafted, consulted on and approved by the Parliament. That means that no final decision will be taken on the tail docking of dogs until the regulations are completed. If those who argue for an exemption for working dogs can present persuasive evidence in support of their case, that will be given full consideration.
I would like to continue, because I want to deal with a couple of points that have been raised.
John Swinney raised the possibility of puppies being sold to a breeder in England and then sold back again. To clarify for Mr Swinney, if the purpose was to have the tails docked, it would be illegal to move the dogs outwith Scotland.
I gave way several times in my opening remarks.
John Home Robertson talked about farm animals. The European Commission regularly reviews and updates farm animal welfare rules. The European Council agrees directives and regulations that control farming practices. Decisions on mutilations of farm animals should be agreed at that level, to ensure a level playing field throughout the European Union.
Any new procedure that involves mutilating an animal will be prohibited unless and until it is specifically exempted. State veterinary service veterinarians and officials will consider the evidence on whether the procedure warrants an exemption and advise ministers accordingly. If an exemption is proposed, there will of course be public consultation. Parliamentary approval will be required of any regulations that exempt a procedure. I repeat that no final decision will be taken on the tail docking of dogs until the regulations are completed.
Division number 8
For: Adam, Brian, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Gorrie, Donald, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kane, Rosie, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Leckie, Carolyn, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, MacDonald, Margo, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Matheson, Michael, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McMahon, Michael, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, 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, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Turner, Dr Jean, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watt, Ms Maureen, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Aitken, Bill, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brownlee, Derek, Crawford, Bruce, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Fergusson, Alex, Fraser, Murdo, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Martin, Campbell, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Petrie, Dave, Scott, John, Stevenson, Stewart, Swinney, Mr John, Welsh, Mr Andrew
Abstentions: Fabiani, Linda, Robison, Shona, White, Ms Sandra
Division number 9
For: Aitken, Bill, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brownlee, Derek, Crawford, Bruce, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Fergusson, Alex, Fraser, Murdo, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Johnstone, Alex, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Petrie, Dave, Scott, John, Swinney, Mr John, Welsh, Mr Andrew
Against: Adam, Brian, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Henry, Hugh, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kane, Rosie, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Leckie, Carolyn, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, MacDonald, Margo, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Campbell, Martin, Paul, Matheson, Michael, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McMahon, Michael, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, 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, Stone, Mr Jamie, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Turner, Dr Jean, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watt, Ms Maureen, White, Ms Sandra, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Stevenson, Stewart
Division number 10
For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brownlee, Derek, Crawford, Bruce, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fraser, Murdo, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Johnstone, Alex, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Petrie, Dave, Scott, John, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Welsh, Mr Andrew
Against: Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Gorrie, Donald, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kane, Rosie, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, MacDonald, Margo, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Campbell, Martin, Paul, Matheson, Michael, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McMahon, Michael, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robison, Shona, Robson, Euan, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinburne, John, Turner, Dr Jean, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watt, Ms Maureen, White, Ms Sandra, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan