Group 2 is on free school meals and snacks. Amendment 1, in the name of Tricia Marwick, is grouped with amendments 6, 22 to 24, 3, 4, 14 to 20, 25, 7, 26 and 9. If amendment 1 is agreed to, amendment 6 will be pre-empted. Time is tight, so I ask speakers to limit themselves to four minutes.

Members of the Communities Committee will know that similar amendments were discussed during stage 2, but I make no apology for bringing amendments 1, 22, 3 and 4 to the chamber today. The bill will allow local authorities the flexibility either to provide free breakfasts, fruit and snacks or to charge for them, but it does not allow local authorities to decide whether to charge for school meals. The new section that the Executive has added to the bill says that an education authority can provide anything other than school lunches free of charge. However, as amended, section 53 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 will say that local authorities must charge pupils for lunches. I am not the only person to consider it bizarre that local authorities are allowed the flexibility to determine whether to provide free snacks and breakfasts but will not have the same flexibility to provide free school meals.

If amendment 1 is not agreed to, the bill will provide less flexibility than exists in England. Free school meals have been piloted in Hull. Unfortunately, when the Liberal Democrats took over Hull City Council, they stopped that experiment, much to the annoyance of the Labour members of the council, who wanted the experiment to continue. South of the border, in Hull, Labour MPs, Labour councillors and Labour activists argue for the flexibility to have a pilot in Hull, while in Scotland we are being denied that same flexibility. It is a matter of consistency.

The member said that the Liberal Democrat administration in Hull stopped the experiment, but that is not the case. The administration continued the experiment until the end of the pilot period so that it could do a proper assessment of it. I hope that the member will withdraw her comment, which was misleading.

That is not my understanding. I accept what the member says, but it is clear that the experiment was to go no further and that the council was going to stop it, regardless of whether the evaluation confirmed the initial finding that the experiment was working well and having a positive impact on children's health.

According to the Child Poverty Action Group, 38,000 children in Scotland live in poverty but are denied free school meals. My colleague Christine Grahame will say more about that, but her amendments at stage 2 were not supported by the Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative members of the Communities Committee, who argued that provision should not be extended. The Minister for Education and Young People said that ministers already have powers to extend eligibility for free school meals, and all committee members, except the SNP and Green members, voted against Christine Grahame's amendments. A week later, however, the First Minister told the Child Poverty Action Group that the group of children who were covered by the amendments that his colleagues voted against would now get free school meals. The SNP believes that the matter should be covered in the bill.

My amendments would give local authorities the flexibility to determine what is right for their area, to decide whether pupils should pay for school meals and to run pilot schemes and evaluate the importance of free school meals.

I move amendment 1.

My amendment 6 proposes universal provision of free, nutritious school meals. We support universal provision because, if we are to give children the chance to have nutritious school meals, we should ensure that all children get the chance to eat those meals.

I begin by thanking the free school meals campaign. In particular, I acknowledge the work of the Child Poverty Action Group, One Plus, the Scottish Trades Union Congress women's committee, Unison and the many others who joined the campaign. I thank them for the solid support that they have provided since 2001, when Tommy Sheridan first raised the matter in a member's bill.

Capability Scotland states:

"Capability Scotland's own research—through our 1 in 4 poll which surveys a panel of disabled people, their family members and carers across Scotland—shows the following:

• Nearly 40% of respondents had an income of less than £200 per week
• State benefits were the main source of income for nearly 70% of respondents
• Nevertheless, two thirds of families with children did not receive free school meals".

Such anomalies crop up throughout the benefits system, but extending means testing to ensure that more children are given free school meals is not the answer. The answer is to ensure that no child is left without a free, nutritious school meal.

Capability Scotland goes on to state:

"disabled families do not generally receive free school meals, despite an increased chance of living in poverty."

It points out that many disabled children have special dietary needs and that their diet would be helped if they were given free school meals.

Research by Save the Children shows that the families of many children who live in the most severe and persistent poverty do not receive benefits and therefore the children are not guaranteed to receive free school meals. I might have said this before in other debates, but I do not apologise for saying it again. In my past experience in education, I encountered families who would not fill in forms for free school meals. They refused to do so, for whatever reason—we can perhaps work out what the reasons were. That meant that the children were not given access to a decent meal and staff had to provide for them quietly at dinner time with sandwiches to take home because they were not being fed. Eventually, the children ended up at the sheriff court and were taken into care, but for about 18 months they were not provided with good meals. It is important to ensure that everyone is caught by the safety net.

We are all concerned about the figures on child obesity. What better way is there to ensure that all our children are healthy than to educate them about food and provide them with a free, nutritious school meal? Finland does that, and it has made a huge difference to the health of the nation. We can do it as well. There is no doubt in my mind that the amount of money that would be required is minimal in comparison with the long-term health benefits for the nation.

I make no apology for proposing universal provision of free school meals. I hope that members will support my amendments 6, 23, 24, 7 and 9. I am sympathetic to the other amendments in the group, but universality is the best way forward.

When we ask parents what they want for their children, one or two will say, "I want wee Kenny to play for Scotland", or, "I'd like Kylie to win 'The X Factor'", but most parents say, "I want them to be happy and healthy." Given the recent United Nations Children's Fund report, which showed that our children are the unhappiest in the developed world, we, including us in the Parliament, stand condemned. Today, however, we have a chance to help parents with their second wish.

Bad food equals bad health. Good food equals good health. It is not rocket science—that is what members of the Westminster Parliament are debating today. The universal provision of free, healthy school meals works, but members should not just take my word for that. In the public gallery today is Jo Pike from the University of Hull, who, with Derek Colquhoun, evaluated Hull City Council's free school meals programme for three years. Jo Pike will be presenting the evidence today, and every MSP who is interested in child health or educational attainment should listen to her or read her research. It states that the city of Hull is experiencing calmer classrooms in which children are more enthusiastic and more confident socially, and Professor Colquhoun states that children's learning, social relationships, behaviour and health have improved.

The Executive's arguments against the provision of free, healthy school meals across the board are appalling. As I said at stage 2, we know from the bill that the Executive is not against universality. The minister is in favour of free fruit—a banana and an apple costing 40p—and free breakfasts for all children in primary schools. Those cost £1 each, but he is opposed to spending £1.15 to provide children with free school lunches because he does not want to give them to rich kids. If he is to be consistent, he should take the banana, the apple, the toast and the cornflakes off the rich kids. He is not against universality, and he has the money to provide free school lunches. The Executive's underspend has been £1.4 billion in the four years for which I have been an MSP—it has more than enough money to provide £70 million per year to pay for free school meals.

Every single MSP has the power to change people's lives. Let us use that power and do something for our children's future and their health. My amendments 14 and 15 are two small amendments, but they are one big leap for the health of our children. I ask members to support my amendments for free, healthy school meals.

I refer to the comments that I made on my amendments at stage 2.

During stage 1, Barnardo's Scotland referred to the

"difference between the percentage of children who live in poverty—23 per cent—and the percentage of children who are eligible for free school meals, which is 18 per cent".

Barnardo's further commented:

"It seems strange that an anti-poverty measure is set at a level that excludes an awful lot of children who it is accepted live in poverty."—[Official Report, Communities Committee, 22 November 2006; c 4331.]

I am also obliged to Save the Children for its paper entitled "Children Can't Wait", which advises that there are currently 240,000 children in Scotland who live in poverty.

The SNP seeks to extend the provision of free school meals to children whose families are on a wide range of benefits other than the current qualifying benefits, which I understand are income support, income-based jobseekers allowance and support for asylum seekers. My amendments seek to extend eligibility to children whose families are on low incomes and receive the following benefits: the working tax credit, because the parents are getting back into the jobs market; the lone parents benefit run-on; council tax benefit; housing benefit; and local housing allowance, which I understand applies instead of housing benefit in some areas, such as Argyll. We all know how difficult it is to access benefits in Scotland, so the people concerned are very needy.

Jack McConnell, who has been in power for eight years but who has now been pushed into a corner by the Scottish National Party, said recently that the Executive

"will, in the first year of the next Parliament, extend entitlement and reverse the shameful decision made by the Tories to cut school meals."

It is not my position ever to defend the Tories, and I am not doing that. However, I want members to consider who is really to blame. Jack McConnell said that he would extend entitlement

"to families on maximum working tax credit" in order to

"give nearly 100,000 kids"— his word—

"access to a free healthy meal, and ... improve their lives."

In the debate on the Education (School Meals) Scotland Bill in June 2003, my colleague, Fiona Hyslop, proposed those very measures, yet the Labour and Liberal Democrat Government voted against them. I smell an election coming. The Executive parties feel that they have to do something, just as they did for the nurses.

When I lodged my amendments at stage 2, Scott Barrie said of children in Glasgow:

"They were already entitled to free meals but sought to go outwith the school to the local shops or wherever to get snacks or meals. We really need to address that point. A number of people who are entitled to free school meals do not take them. By extending provision, there is no guarantee that the very people we want to reach are the ones who would actually take up free meals."

He continued:

"That is where we should be concentrating our efforts, certainly at the start. We should see whether that makes a difference before we spend resources in a way that might not achieve what we all want to achieve."—[Official Report, Communities Committee, 13 February 2007; c 4569.]

I suppose that Jack McConnell has had a word in his ear since then.

There are three arguments for free school meals: the need to tackle poverty; the need to tackle obesity, which is a health issue; and the need to address nutrition and learning. In order to cover those three areas, the SNP wants to exempt more families from having to pay for school meals. Tricia Marwick's amendments will allow flexibility for local authorities; Christine Grahame's amendments will tackle the issue of poverty and passported benefits; and my amendments 25 and 26 will allow for national pilots, to enable local authorities in certain areas to run free school meal pilot schemes. The SNP is committed to piloting the universal provision of free school meals in primary 1 to primary 3.

The arguments are clear. If we are to tackle our obesity time bomb, we must ensure that our young people develop their palates in their early years—at nursery and primary school—to get a taste for good food that will lead them to take up school meals later in life. We know that, because of the problems of public-private partnership schemes, many schools do not have kitchens to enable free, nutritious school meals to be produced on site. That is why we must have pilot schemes. A good Government is one that does the right thing when it starts its period in government, not one that, at the tail end or last gasp of its period in government, suddenly decides to extend the provision of free school meals to tackle poverty. Liberal Democrat and Labour members should hang their heads in shame for refusing to support, when they had the chance in 2003, the extension of free school meals to children whose families are in receipt of passported benefits.

Will the member give way?

No, I will not.

Let us take a bold step now and say that we want universal provision of school meals in this country. However, let us take a pragmatic approach and pilot that to see what works and where. In particular, we should look at the nutrition and learning aspects, as the bill already goes some way towards addressing the obesity agenda. I think that the next agenda that the Parliament should address is what we are feeding our children and how it affects their ability to learn.

This is an opportunity for us to tackle those issues and to tackle poverty by extending provision to children whose families are in receipt of passported benefits. This is also an opportunity to tackle obesity by developing children's palates so that they favour nutritious meals in their early years, with universal provision piloted in the first three years of nursery. Although we have some way to go, we should not be feeble but should take a bold step and vote for the SNP amendments.

We are discussing a progressive piece of legislation that could be made much better if we supported amendments that would enable the universal provision of free school meals. I do not understand the objection to giving local authorities the discretion to do that.

Child obesity is a ticking time bomb. I secured a members' business debate on the issue about a year ago. There is no quick fix to the problem. The positive health changes that took place in Finland happened more than 30 years after the introduction of free school meals. The sooner we start, the sooner we will get on with making those changes. There is no point in my spelling out the obvious health benefits of free school meals, as they have been well rehearsed for years in the Parliament. It is clear to me that the improvements in health would offset any costs and would be well worth the price we would pay.

It is essential that we tackle childhood dietary health. One of the most direct and achievable means of doing that is by providing free, healthy meals to all children at lunch time in state schools—at the very least, in primary schools—for which we ought to establish pilot schemes. I believe in the universal provision of free school meals, but I think that pilot schemes would be a way forward to show that the policy would work and would be of benefit to our children's health.

Universal provision seems to be accepted in many areas. For example, there is free bus travel for the elderly, there is the central heating allowance for the over-60s and there are free nursery places for three and four-year-olds. Indeed, the national health service is provided universally—and we provide free food to people who use that service. The bill accepts the need to provide healthy snacks in our schools, as happens.

I do not believe that we can afford to means test children on something that directly affects their health and the future health of the Scottish population. Ever the optimist, I think that we will, eventually, get around to providing free lunches for all children in our state schools. The bill is good and progressive. Those who, over the years, have campaigned for changes ought to be congratulated on getting the bill introduced and, I hope, passed today. I have consistently supported the universal provision of free school meals and I will continue to do so.

I appreciate why those who were members in the first session of the Parliament may feel that we have had the argument about the provision of free school meals too many times, but I feel that it would be wrong to pass the bill without debating the issue—not least because even the First Minister has now changed his position on extending the scope of free school meals. It is therefore right for us to have the debate even just one more time.

The two issues that I think the minister needs to address are the contradictions in the Executive's position for which I find no explanation. The first is the fact that there is universal provision of free school breakfasts, snacks and fruit but an absolute prohibition on the same approach being taken to lunches simply because they are served in the middle of the day. I cannot find any explanation in any of the minister's statements in the Official Reports of our stage 1 and stage 2 proceedings that clarifies why a fundamentally different approach must be written into law simply because food is served at a particular time of day. The only explanation that I can conceive of is that the Executive's approach is based on cost alone.

The second contradiction that I still cannot get my head round is that it is now accepted that food in schools is not merely an optional extra but an integral part of the education experience. Food in schools is about teaching children to have a healthier relationship with food that will serve them well for the rest of their lives. Why should lunch be the one aspect of children's education experience that is not provided for universally?

I understand the targeting argument—that we should target our resources on those who most need them—but why does that not apply to the provision of jotters in schools? Why do we not charge wealthy parents when their children sit exams in schools? Why do we not charge wealthy parents when their children attend school? I believe that education should be universally provided and collectively paid for. I am sure that the minister believes that as well.

Can the minister give us one reason why we should continue to create two classes of school pupil? Why should we continue to distinguish between those who are entitled to all their education free at the point of use and those who are charged for one aspect of it? We keep tying ourselves up in knots by trying to produce anonymous systems to cover up the distinction that we have created in the classroom. Why do we not simply remove the distinction? That would be simpler, more convenient and easier to administer. It would also be the right thing to do.

I have heard the arguments and I have listened carefully to the debate, especially Christine Grahame's speech.

My major concern is the number of children who do not take up the free school meals to which they are currently entitled. We need to consider that issue seriously. I genuinely feel that parents who can afford it should provide school meals for their children. I do not agree with universality.

Can we not do both those things? Can we not find ways to encourage take-up of free school meals among children who are currently eligible for them and extend eligibility? We could do both—at least, the SNP could.

My view is that we can and should actively encourage children to stay in school at lunch time so that they can get involved in various activities and, one would hope, take up school lunches. Having worked in schools recently, I have seen the state of the resources in schools and the shortages of text books and information technology facilities. If the children of parents who can afford to pay for their school lunches are to be given lunches for free, that lack of resources will continue.

I have listened carefully to the member's argument. He said that parents who can afford to pay for their children's school lunches should do so. Does he also argue that parents who can afford to pay for breakfasts, snacks and fruit should pay for them?

I am concentrating on lunches.

I can see the arguments, but I believe that school resources will suffer if parents who can afford to pay for their children's school lunches are not required to pay for them.

I seek clarification from the minister. Obviously, there are political arguments about these issues, but I suggest that we should try to pass laws that are reasonably sensible whatever the politics behind them.

The bill will introduce the new concept of time-ism, rather like ageism and racism. Activities that are carried out at certain times of the day will be considered good and worthy, but exactly the same activities that are carried out at other times of the day will be illegal.

Let us imagine that a slightly bolshie head teacher or director of education decides that a school or schools will provide all pupils with a free meal at, say, 2.30. Would such a delayed lunch break—it would need to be called an afternoon break rather than a lunch break—be legitimate? Alternatively, might schools be able to provide a large free meal in the morning break? The bill allows education authorities to provide free food

"other than in the middle of the day".

What is the middle of the day? I suggest that a cantankerous head teacher—I would quite enjoy the role—would be able to challenge that in the courts. Will the minister clarify what the period of no free food will be?

It is helpful to get it on record that the Scottish National Party wants to take the bold step of running a pilot. "Let's run a pilot and then—mibbes aye, mibbes no—we might or might not go ahead. We are taking the bold step." I thank Fiona Hyslop for that clarification.

I will try to address the various points that have been made in the debate. We have discussed at stages 1 and 2 and on many other occasions the fact that the bill is about the content of the food that is provided in schools and encouraging healthy eating. Those who would extend eligibility for free school meals to people who receive particular benefits—

The First Minister has said that he wants to do that.

I will come to what the First Minister has said in a minute.

We do not need to legislate to extend eligibility for free school meals because we already have the powers to do that. The First Minister has made it clear that the people of Scotland must decide whether they want to go down the route of universal free school meals provision or whether they want resources to be targeted. He has also, on behalf of the Labour party, made a particular offer that will be part of the political process. However, we have made a commitment in the current parliamentary session to change the nature of the food that is provided in schools.

Will the minister take an intervention?

In a second.

We have made a commitment to try to change children's attitudes towards the eating of food and their perceptions of what is good for them. The bill is about healthy eating in schools rather than free school meals.

Will the minister give way?

In a moment. Let me proceed.

We have made our position perfectly clear. We do not support universal free school meals. We want to target resources where they are most needed and that is what we are doing. The bill is about improving the quality of meals—

Will the minister take an intervention?

In a moment.

The bill is about improving people's understanding so that they start to develop a healthy lifestyle. Many families can afford to pay for their children's school meals. Subsidising such families would use money that would otherwise be used to help those in need. That point would hold equally true in any pilot of free school meals provision.

On this issue, the SNP makes David Cameron look like an amateur when it comes to flip-flops. Very creatively, the SNP seems to have developed a different policy for each day of the school week. For Mondays, the SNP can offer its previous policy of free school meals for all. For Tuesdays, its decision is to vote against free school meals. For Wednesdays, it proposes a pilot project for free school meals. For Thursdays, it can offer Christine Grahame's option of extending free school meals to those who are on other benefits. For Fridays, it wants to go down the route that Tricia Marwick has proposed. At least Tommy Sheridan, Rosemary Byrne, Frances Curran and others have been consistent in their arguments.

Parliament has already twice debated and rejected the universal provision of free school meals.

Will the minister give way?

I will give way to Tommy Sheridan.

The minister said that eligibility for free school meals can be extended through regulations, and does not require primary legislation. It could have been done at any time in the past eight years. Will he tell the Parliament whether the Labour party was prevented from extending eligibility just now, on the eve of an election, by its Liberal Democrat partners?

No. The First Minister has said that such an extension will be part of the Labour party's offer to the people of Scotland. In coalition, we have governed responsibly. We have looked at the resources that are available to us and we have made decisions about priorities. Tommy Sheridan and others suggest that everything in Scotland could be free at all times and for all people. The beneficiaries of that type of policy are sitting in this chamber.

We have made decisions that will improve Scottish education and we are seeing the clear results of them. The schools that I have visited have an atmosphere that is completely different from what Dave Petrie described. The people in the schools that I have visited are thanking us for the extra money. They thank us for the decision to allow free whiteboards to be put into every school.

Will the minister give way?

No.

Schools are thanking us for providing extra money to make a difference. We are now seeing real improvements in Scottish education. In fact, teachers themselves have commented on the contrast between the situation under the Conservatives and what is happening now.

The bill provides an opportunity for the Parliament to change young children's habits and attitudes as they develop and move through adolescence into adulthood.

Will the minister give way?

Will the minister give way?

No.

Amendment 8, in the name of Rosemary Byrne, would require local authorities to provide fruit or milk in primary and nursery schools free of charge. The bill already gives local authorities the power to do that, if they so wish. Indeed, the new power gives them the flexibility to decide on the approach that is best for them. If a local authority wants to provide free milk to all primary school pupils or free fruit to all nursery pupils, the bill gives them the power to do that. I am therefore not clear how to interpret Rosemary Byrne's amendments.

Will the minister give way?

No.

For example, it appears that if an authority wanted to provide free fruit to some schools because of health or social circumstances, amendments 23 and 24 would require it to extend that provision to all primary and nursery schools. The amendments are simply not clear, and local authorities might decide not to provide free milk or fruit in any circumstances if they feel that they will be compelled to extend such provision to all.

Our flexible and responsible approach will make a real difference to the quality of provision in schools and it builds on our solid and steady progress since 1999.

One can always tell when Hugh Henry is rattled or saying something he does not quite believe in: he becomes more and more gratuitously insulting. That has happened today and it happened during the Communities Committee's stage 2 consideration of the bill when he was faced with exactly the same amendments and did not know how to handle them. Perhaps the fact that Jack McConnell ca'd the feet from under him two weeks later makes the point better than I can.

The minister has said that the bill provides flexibility. Indeed it does; it gives local authorities the flexibility to provide free breakfasts, free fruit and free milk. But it does not give local authorities the flexibility to introduce pilot schemes in specific geographical or demographic areas and to evaluate for themselves the case for free school meals. That is the crux of the matter, and the minister has consistently failed to answer questions on that point from Patrick Harvie, from Frances Curran, from Donald Gorrie and from Elaine C—I am sorry, Elaine Smith. [Laughter.] I am sorry; I should not have used the C word in the chamber.

The minister has refused to answer questions on this point at stage 1, at stage 2 and now at stage 3. Why will he not give local authorities the flexibility to introduce pilot schemes? He said that the bill does not need to set out the powers required to meet the intentions behind Christine Grahame's amendments, because ministers already have them. As Fiona Hyslop said, if ministers have had those powers all this time, why have they not suggested, before now, extending free school meal provision and bringing the very poorest children in Scotland within its ambit?

Does the member agree that the Liberal Democrat partners in the Executive have prevented the Labour Party from taking such action? Labour has wanted to introduce this provision for eight years now, and has waited until the eve of the election to push ahead with it. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats are to blame.

I cannot wholly accept Tommy Sheridan's premise. Labour is the majority party, so it is responsible for denying the very poorest children in Scotland that extension of free school meals.

The SNP wants members to vote for Christine Grahame's amendments because they will make these matters clear in the bill. The SNP Government that will be in place after May will be quite happy to be locked into those provisions and happy not to give ministers flexibility to decide whether to give the very poorest children free school meals. After all, what ministers can give, they can take away. That is why we need legislation on the matter, why these provisions need to be set out in the bill and why I urge every member who cares about the very poorest children in our society—

Will the member give way?

No. The member can sit down, because he does not care.

I urge every member who actually cares about the very poorest children in our society to vote for the SNP amendments.

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

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 2

For: Adam, Brian, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Kane, Rosie, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine, Stevenson, Stewart, Watt, Ms Maureen
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, 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, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Tosh, Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Gorrie, Donald

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 73, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

Amendment 6 moved—[Ms Rosemary Byrne].

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

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 3

For: Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Curran, Frances, Harvie, Patrick, Kane, Rosie, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, 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, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Tosh, Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Adam, Brian, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Rob, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hyslop, Fiona, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Stevenson, Stewart, Watt, Ms Maureen

The result of the division is: For 11, Against 73, Abstentions 20.

Amendment 6 disagreed to.

Amendment 22 moved—[Tricia Marwick].

The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 4

For: Adam, Brian, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine, Stevenson, Stewart, Watt, Ms Maureen
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, 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, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Tosh, Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Gorrie, Donald

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 71, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 22 disagreed to.

Amendment 23 moved—[Ms Rosemary Byrne].

The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 5

For: Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Curran, Frances, Fox, Colin, Harvie, Patrick, Kane, Rosie, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, 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, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Tosh, Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Adam, Brian, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Rob, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Stevenson, Stewart, Watt, Ms Maureen

The result of the division is: For 12, Against 72, Abstentions 21.

Amendment 23 disagreed to.

Amendment 24 moved—[Ms Rosemary Byrne].

The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 6

For: Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Curran, Frances, Fox, Colin, Harvie, Patrick, Kane, Rosie, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Tosh, Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Adam, Brian, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Rob, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Stevenson, Stewart, Watt, Ms Maureen

The result of the division is: For 12, Against 71, Abstentions 21.

Amendment 24 disagreed to.

Amendment 3 moved—[Tricia Marwick].

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

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 7

For: Adam, Brian, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine, Stevenson, Stewart, Watt, Ms Maureen
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, 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, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Tosh, Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Gorrie, Donald

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 72, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 3 disagreed to.

Amendment 4 moved—[Tricia Marwick].

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

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 8

For: Adam, Brian, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine, Stevenson, Stewart, Watt, Ms Maureen
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Tosh, Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Gorrie, Donald

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 72, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 4 disagreed to.

Amendment 14 moved—[Frances Curran].

The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 9

For: Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Curran, Frances, Fox, Colin, Harvie, Patrick, Kane, Rosie, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, 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, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Tosh, Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Adam, Brian, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Rob, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Stevenson, Stewart, Watt, Ms Maureen

The result of the division is: For 12, Against 73, Abstentions 20.

Amendment 14 disagreed to.

Amendment 15 moved—[Frances Curran].

The question is, that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 10

For: Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Curran, Frances, Fox, Colin, Harvie, Patrick, Kane, Rosie, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, 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, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Adam, Brian, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Rob, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Stevenson, Stewart, Watt, Ms Maureen

The result of the division is: For 12, Against 71, Abstentions 21.

Amendment 15 disagreed to.

Amendment 16 moved—[Christine Grahame].

The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 11

For: Adam, Brian, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine, Stevenson, Stewart, Watt, Ms Maureen
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, 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, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Tosh, Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Gorrie, Donald

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 72, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 16 disagreed to.

Amendment 17 moved—[Christine Grahame].

The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 12

For: Adam, Brian, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine, Stevenson, Stewart, Watt, Ms Maureen
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, 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, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Tosh, Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Gorrie, Donald

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 73, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 17 disagreed to.

Amendment 18 moved—[Christine Grahame].

The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 13

For: Adam, Brian, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine, Stevenson, Stewart, Watt, Ms Maureen
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, 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, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Tosh, Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Gorrie, Donald

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 73, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 18 disagreed to.

Amendment 19 moved—[Christine Grahame].

The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 14

For: Adam, Brian, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine, Stevenson, Stewart, Watt, Ms Maureen
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, 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, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Tosh, Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Gorrie, Donald

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 72, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 19 disagreed to.

Amendment 20 moved—[Christine Grahame].

The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 15

For: Adam, Brian, Baird, Shiona, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine, Stevenson, Stewart, Watt, Ms Maureen
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, 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, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Tosh, Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Gorrie, Donald

The result of the division is: For 30, Against 73, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 20 disagreed to.

Amendment 25 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].

The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 16

For: Adam, Brian, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Smith, Elaine, Stevenson, Stewart, Watt, Ms Maureen
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, 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, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Tosh, Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Gorrie, Donald, Sheridan, Tommy

The result of the division is: For 30, Against 73, Abstentions 3.

Amendment 25 disagreed to.

Amendment 7 moved—[Ms Rosemary Byrne].

The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 17

For: Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Curran, Frances, Fox, Colin, Harvie, Patrick, Kane, Rosie, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, 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, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Tosh, Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Adam, Brian, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Rob, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Stevenson, Stewart, Watt, Ms Maureen

The result of the division is: For 12, Against 72, Abstentions 21.

Amendment 7 disagreed to.