Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Item 2 is stage 2 of the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. I am pleased to welcome to the meeting the Minister for Culture and External Affairs, Fiona Hyslop, and her supporting officials.
Sections 1 to 5 agreed to.
Section 6—Works affecting scheduled monuments: enforcement
Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2 to 4, 9 and 11 to 13.
Amendments 1 to 4, 9 and 11 to 13 are all technical. Amendments 1 to 4 will amend text that section 6 of the bill will insert into the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 that relates to procedural aspects of certain rights of entry to display various enforcement notices. Amendments 9 and 11 to 13 will amend similar text that section 23 of the bill will insert into the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997.
Both sets of amendments do the same thing—they set out in full certain provisions so that it is easier to understand what is being referred to. The current text is technically sufficient, but we thought it preferable to lodge the minor redrafting amendments to bring out the purpose of the relevant right of entry provisions in a more direct and easily understood manner.
I move amendment 1.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments 2 to 4 moved—[Fiona Hyslop]—and agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 7 to 14 agreed to.
Section 15—Scheduled monument consent: regulations as respects applications, etc
Amendment 5, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 6 to 8.
Amendments 5 to 8 are technical and respond to a comment that the Subordinate Legislation Committee made in its consideration of the bill. That committee did not go as far as recommending a change, but I concluded that it was preferable to adjust section 15 to take account of its remarks. For members who have served on that committee, it is helpful to know that we sometimes respond positively to its remarks.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee drew attention to the creation of a power, which section 15(3) will insert, to allow for regulations to introduce the principle that a refusal to entertain an application for scheduled monument consent could be given when the application was not accompanied by an appropriate certificate. The amendments will set out that principle in the bill and ensure that the regulation-making power is confined to administrative detail.
I move amendment 5.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Amendments 6 to 8 moved—[Fiona Hyslop]—and agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 16 to 22 agreed to.
Section 23—Stop notices and temporary stop notices
Amendment 9 moved—[Fiona Hyslop]—and agreed to.
Amendment 10, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 10 is a minor technical amendment that will ensure that section 66(3) of the 1997 act includes a reference to new sections 41A to 41I of that act, which section 23 of the bill will insert. That will enable stop notices and temporary stop notices to be available as enforcement tools in relation to unlisted buildings in conservation areas. That is consistent with other protection that is afforded to such buildings by virtue of section 66(3) of the 1997 act.
Due to a numbering sequence in the 1997 act, the provisions were not included when they ought to have been caught. What is involved is therefore a technical redraft.
I move amendment 10.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendments 11 to 13 moved—[Fiona Hyslop]—and agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
After section 24
10:45
Amendment 14, in my name, is in a group on its own.
As members will know, I do not usually lodge amendments, because it is difficult to chair the committee at stage 2 and make arguments for amendments. However, I wanted to do so on this occasion because, as the minister will be aware—although members might not be—we have been in correspondence about an historic monument in my constituency that has generated some casework for me. It is an historic doocot that causes considerable concern to local residents, not because they do not want it but because it is not maintained as well as they think it could be. Concerns were expressed by nearby residents and the local authority has attempted to reach a resolution. However, despite the fact that minor works would help to ensure the long-term maintenance and future of the historic doocot, because it is not in a state of danger the local authority is unable to take any action or to work with the owner to positively encourage them to think about maintenance work that would enhance it.
For that reason, I began to correspond with the minister on the issue and sought advice from the Built Environment Forum Scotland, which kindly helped me with amendment 14. The forum suggested that the amendment would not place an unnecessarily costly burden on local authorities but would enhance their powers and the options that are open to them to engage with owners of uninhabited historic monuments to allow them to take preventive measures. As Archaeology Scotland said in its submission to the committee, it is a bit like a stitch in time—work that is done now prevents much more costly work from being required in future. I am pleased that Archaeology Scotland and the Built Environment Forum support amendment 14. I seek the support of committee members and, I hope, the minister.
I move amendment 14.
I have a question for the minister. The convener raises a clear example from her constituency that highlights a potential problem with the law. Have any other examples been brought to the minister’s attention? It sounds as though such situations could be relatively common. I am aware of disputes over the maintenance of listed buildings and scheduled monuments and of discussion in each case about the powers of local authorities to intervene. I am interested in the minister’s comments on whether the problem that the convener has highlighted illuminates a wider range of problems that we need to address.
I have a comment and a question. I have had similar experiences in relation to dangerous trees and such things. The commonsense approach would be that a council should be able to deal with things that are deteriorating and are likely to have an impact on residents or the environment. However, surprisingly, on a number of occasions, we find that local authorities do not have the powers that one thinks they have. In fact, sometimes, they do not have the powers that local authorities elsewhere in the United Kingdom have. Therefore, I have sympathy with where the convener is coming from.
My major point is that we should be sure that amendment 14 gives local authorities powers to take action that they decide is required, rather than in any way meaning that they have to take action. At stage 1, we were cognisant of the fact that we do not want to put extra burdens on local authorities at present and that putting extra financial burdens on local authorities could have an impact on the financial memorandum. I seek clarification that the power could be used at the councils’ discretion, rather than imposing a burden on them by requiring that they take action.
Amendment 14 might come to be known as the Airdrie doocot amendment. I have tried to explain in my correspondence with Karen Whitefield that powers already exist for local authorities in that regard. The amendment adds words to section 49(3) of the 1997 act. It provides an additional example of the type of urgent works that local authorities can carry out on unoccupied listed buildings under section 49(1) of the act.
As I mentioned in my letter of 31 October to Karen Whitefield on her constituency case regarding the Airdrie doocot, section 49(1) of the 1997 act enables local authorities to undertake any works that they believe are
“urgently necessary for the preservation of a listed building”.
The powers are not limited to the point at which extensive problems emerge or the structure is deemed to be dangerous. They can be used by local authorities—and have been, which addresses Ken Macintosh’s question about other examples—to undertake relatively minor works such as cleaning gutters to help to prevent serious damage from occurring in the first place.
However, I recognise that the provisions that exist in section 49(1) of the 1997 act have been interpreted in different ways. That is perhaps why members perceive that local authorities somehow do not think that they have the powers to take action where remedial work is needed to help to preserve a listed building.
I am happy to give the committee an assurance that my officials in Historic Scotland will ensure that examples of the type of work that may be carried out under section 49 are included in future guidance. The powers are there, but local authorities are not necessarily cognisant of the fact that they can use those powers to do exactly the type of work that is needed on the Airdrie doocot. I would be happy to write to North Lanarkshire Council about the Airdrie doocot, to bring to its attention the powers that it has under the existing legislation to carry out the works that Karen Whitefield suggests might be needed. The committee may also wish to know that COSLA opposes amendment 14.
As the suggested initial wording is already covered by the general wording in section 49(1) of the 1997 act, the Scottish Government believes that amendment 14 is unnecessary in law, because what it seeks to do is covered by existing legislation. Given our assurance that we will produce further guidance to ensure that local authorities are aware of their existing powers, I urge the convener to withdraw amendment 14.
I have mixed views on the issue. I do not doubt in any way the sincerity of your comments, but your letter to me of 31 October has been passed to North Lanarkshire Council, and the council’s planning officers do not believe that the law is sufficient to allow them to have the dialogue that is required to allow some initial work to be undertaken.
The work would be of a preventive nature; it would involve cleaning out gutters and taking steps to cut back tree branches that are coming through the historic wall from the open ground on the other side. Those things are not being done.
I am slightly perplexed by COSLA’s view on the issue. It objects to amendment 14 on the basis that it does not believe that the amendment is necessary, but local authorities, and my local council in particular, think that it is. The Built Environment Forum and Archaeology Scotland think that it is a welcome amendment that provides clarity. I recognise that I may be defeated and am grateful to the minister for the commitment that she has given on guidance, but I will press the amendment.
The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Against
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Abstentions
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 14 agreed to.
On a point of order, convener. Could you provide me with some clarification on the issue? I abstained because, when the minister refers to an interpretation of the law, it is not clear whether there is a problem with the way in which the existing law is written. If that is the case, perhaps we can examine the question further down the line, because it is part of the difficulty. The minister has made clear that existing legislation is available and that ministers ought to have the powers that the convener would like them to have. I suggest that we seek clarification of whether the existing law is badly written or whether there is something about it that places its interpretation in question.
We can write to the minister on the issue, and she can respond. Ultimately, it will be for the courts to determine the interpretation of the law. We are likely to return to the issue at stage 3. I hope that there can be dialogue between us and the minister in advance of that.
Sections 25 to 29 agreed to.
After section 29
Amendment 15, in the name of Ken Macintosh, is in a group on its own.
The purpose of amendment 15 is to place a duty on Scottish ministers to
“give guidance to relevant bodies on how such bodies ... can contribute to the preservation of the historic environment.”
As members know, the bill is primarily an amending bill and deals with legislation governing listed buildings, scheduled monuments and so on. However, as we heard in stage 1 evidence, in particular, the majority of the historic environment is not covered by legislation. Many who work in the area—the Built Environment Forum Scotland spoke on behalf of many such organisations and individuals—thought that the bill offered an opportunity to underpin in legislation our attitudes and policy towards the historic environment.
At stage 1, the Built Environment Forum proposed placing a duty on local authorities and other public bodies. However, in these times, all members are especially conscious of the fact that placing additional duties and, potentially, extra costs on local government is probably inadvisable and would certainly be difficult and burdensome for them, given that they are having to manage cuts.
Amendment 15 is the product of several attempts at an amendment to address the issue. The bill offers us an opportunity. Currently, there is not only a lack of legislation or statutory backing for policy for the whole of the historic environment but concern about the nature of staff in the area and the consistency of implementation of policy towards the built environment and the historic environment across Scotland. In other words, there is a patchy response from local authorities on the issue of whether they should protect, preserve or give priority to their heritage; some do so more than others.
Amendment 15 would result in no additional costs; it has been drafted specifically to ensure that it would have no financial consequences. However, what it proposes would send out a strong message. It would allow the minister to select which authorities and bodies should have regard to the guidance and to draw that guidance up after consultation. The amendment would give statutory backing to the existing policy for the historic Scottish environment and allow the minister and others to bring all local authorities or other bodies up to the same standard and ensure that, in their decision-making processes for planning or otherwise, they have regard to their duties to protect the environment, which is very important for our sense of place and our sense of culture and belonging.
I move amendment 15.
11:00
As it appears that no other member wishes to speak on the amendment, I invite the minister to respond to Mr Macintosh’s points.
Amendment 15 would place a new statutory duty on Scottish ministers to
“give guidance to relevant bodies on how such bodies, in exercising their functions, can contribute to the preservation of the historic environment.”
It would also place a new statutory duty on relevant bodies to have regard to such guidance and would provide for ministers to specify, as Ken Macintosh said, the relevant bodies by statutory instrument.
Some may ask why we oppose the amendment if it does no more than put the Government’s policy on a statutory footing, as I think the mover of the amendment explained. However, the amendment does not reflect the varied and multifaceted approach that our policy framework sets out in aiming to deliver the best outcomes for the historic environment. I do not believe that a flexible policy framework would be enhanced by a rigid and very narrow statutory duty.
Ken Macintosh suggested that the existing guidance and policy statements, which he is trying to back up by putting them on a statutory footing, cover only designated aspects of the historic environment and apply only to Government bodies. However, that is not true, because the undesignated aspects of the historic environment are covered and the policy framework, which is the main framework for policy and guidance in the Scottish historic environment policy, addresses all aspects of the historic environment, and all bodies with responsibility for any aspect of the historic environment are targeted by SHEP. There is therefore a danger that amendment 15 would place an unnecessary new duty on public bodies and introduce more red tape and bureaucracy into the bill, which I acknowledge is not what Ken Macintosh is trying to achieve.
The committee may be interested to note that Scottish ministers currently provide a range of guidance and advice on the management, care, protection and conservation of heritage assets—far broader than just “preservation”, to which the amendment refers—from strategic policy advice to practical technical notes on the management, care and maintenance of different aspects of the historic environment. The extensive guidance that is provided is supplemented in the case of local authorities, for example, by joint-working agreements with Historic Scotland and other agreements with public bodies. There is a suite of measures to ensure that public bodies actively engage in regular discussion and review of their relationship with the historic environment. However, crucially, they also enable public bodies to tailor effective solutions for their circumstances.
The problem with the amendment is that it would encourage a one-size-fits-all approach to the historic environment and encourage public bodies to match their engagement at a lower level than currently exists in many circumstances. I am sure that that was not Ken Macintosh’s intention with the amendment. He spoke about bringing everybody up to a standard. However, there is a danger in the amendment’s approach that our current flexible and effective measures would be hampered by what we regard as a one-dimensional approach.
The amendment would also introduce a regulation culture where none exists. In doing so, it would introduce a limited and narrow view of the relationship that public bodies have with the historic environment. It risks relegating some of the current guidance, good practice and agreements that I have just talked about to a lower level of importance if they are not issued or agreed under the very narrow framework that the amendment proposes. It also risks hampering progress in areas where public bodies need to engage more with the historic environment.
One of the significant concerns about the drafting of the amendment is that it limits the purpose of the guidance to the preservation of the historic environment. I draw your attention to the wording of the amendment, which clearly mentions both in the title of the new section that it would insert and in subsection (1)
“the preservation of the historic environment”.
So much of the care and management that I talked about earlier is to do with more than just preservation. The big challenges that public bodies face are not just about preserving the historic environment but about managing change within it. The amendment is limited because it mentions preservation only. There is more to the relationship with the historic environment than that.
There is a danger that, rather than encouraging better care and management of our historic environment, which I know is Ken Macintosh’s intention, the amendment could set back the progress that has been made in recent years. There is a danger that the repositioning of the historic environment could result in its being seen more as a burden. We are trying hard to ensure that people see it as part and parcel of the economy in the modern day through tourism and other areas. If it is seen as a burden and the duty is just about preservation, that could get in the way of further, more positive activity.
There is also a danger that the relationship with public bodies would become a narrow one that focused on compliance. They might think that, if they comply with the duty, they have done their job. That would be a levelling down rather than bringing everybody up to the same standard. Members might be aware that COSLA is opposed to any duty that could be perceived as a repositioning of the priorities.
I hope that I have explained why we oppose the amendment. I completely understand why Ken Macintosh lodged it and what he is trying to achieve. I just think that it could have unintended consequences and inadvertently cause more of a problem than he might realise.
Mr Macintosh, will you wind up the debate on the group and say whether you wish to press or withdraw your amendment?
I thank the minister for her comments. It is clear that there is not huge disagreement, in that we all believe that it is desirable for all public bodies in Scotland and all of us to act in a manner that helps to protect and enhance our historic environment.
I will talk first about the terminology. The reason why I used the term “preservation” as opposed to “protect and enhance” was to reflect the existing legislation. People who work with the historic environment are trying to move away from the term “preservation” because it has the wrong connotations, but the term is used in existing legislation, and I used it to ensure that I was not out of keeping with that.
However, the important point is not the term “preservation” but the guidance that will be introduced. In that sense, I do not think that the term is a drawback. Not only that, managing change is the key to sensitively protecting our historic environment while maintaining its use, or in other words keeping the key aspects of it that are of value and importance to us but continuing to use the buildings or the area that is of concern to local people.
There is a range of Government policy in the area. I agree that, when we aim to have national standards, there is always a danger that we could lower standards rather than increase them. I recognise that danger, but it is a matter for the drafting and the consultation on the guidance. Currently, there are differences across Scotland. There are those who have a keen regard for the historic environment and others who do not. Some people believe that either an old building is of use or it is redundant and should be demolished to make way for the future. That approach of modernism at all costs is still prevalent in many parts of Scotland.
Statutory guidance would not only promote the importance of the historic environment but enable us, through parliamentary scrutiny, to express our views. There are a number of advantages in having statutory guidance that will not exist if it is just a matter of policy. The dangers that the minister mentioned in her comments about a one-size-fits-all approach and national standards already exist with policy guidance on other matters. It is clear that there is a diversity of standards out there, and the amendment is a method of raising them rather than lowering them.
On that basis, I will press amendment 15 and at least test opinion on the matter.
The question is, that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Against
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP) Smith,
Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 15 disagreed to.
Amendment 16 is also in the name of Ken Macintosh and is in a group on its own.
Amendment 16 is on a similar issue to amendment 15. It is particularly relevant at the moment, as it refers to a planning authority’s
“knowledge and expertise on the preservation of the historic environment.”
At the moment—particularly at this time of cuts and cutbacks—there is great anxiety among people who work in the area not just about the security of individual direct jobs but about the ability of many local authorities to maintain a certain level of knowledge and expertise that is of benefit not just for planning decisions but for the local community—for education, for the enjoyment of local history and so on.
Amendment 16 has been through various drafts. After discussion, we ruled out the idea of placing any duties on individual local authorities to maintain or recruit staff who have knowledge and expertise. We recognise that many local authorities have already gone down the route of working in partnership with voluntary sector organisations such as Archaeology Scotland, and pooling their resources.
The amendment is worded in such a way as to further that approach, although it also provides a backstop whereby local authorities cannot continue to the point where they have no expertise or access to expertise or knowledge about their own historic environment.
A number of surveys have been done that show that at most a handful of staff with expertise are directly or indirectly employed—and that is only in the largest local authorities.
A survey has been done since the committee heard evidence at stage 1, by the Scotland branch of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation, which is the professional body for building and area conservation specialists. It concludes that services are
“perilously close to meltdown if cutbacks continue.”
The organisation also says:
“Although at least the equivalent of two full-time IHBC-level conservation staff is generally recommended by the IHBC for an average planning authority, the Institute’s survey identified an average of less than 2 across Scotland’s local authorities. In addition some authorities are already managing local heritage under specially delegated powers even though the IHBC’s scoping survey could not identify skilled conservation practitioners in these locations.”
In other words, the situation is already difficult.
All that amendment 16 would do is ensure that local authorities take account of their duty to the historic environment, in particular by employing, or having access to, staff with specialist and skilled knowledge. The amendment would not impose any extra costs on local authorities. I hope that the committee will approve it.
I move amendment 16.
I suggest to the committee that there are two perspectives and two arguments to consider with respect to amendment 16. One relates to the actual content of the amendment; I will go into that later.
Secondly, there is an issue around whether legislation should be used to tackle problems that are to do with local authority budgets and personnel issues. Ken Macintosh used an argument about protecting jobs and the need to maintain and recruit staff. I might agree with him on that, but there is an issue as to whether legislation should be used—in relation to the historic environment, health or other areas—to provide “a backstop”, to use Mr Macintosh’s term, on what are ostensibly employer-employee relations in the context of budgets and personnel.
11:15
I am also not sure that securing access to knowledge and expertise, even of itself, within the context of the amendment, would necessarily mean that that access would have to be through staff who were employed by that local authority. Amendment 16 could be interpreted to mean a centralised source, but I think that Ken Macintosh is trying to promote protection of people’s jobs, which I understand, although I am not sure that legislation is the right way to do it. That is one of the arguments that the committee might want to consider.
On amendment 16’s content, the committee’s stage 1 report called on the Government to give further consideration to the issue of expertise in relation to interpretation of information on the historic environment. That was an important part of the report. In my response to the committee of 7 December, I said that
“while the Scottish Government acknowledges that this is an important issue it does not agree that the right way to deal with the matter is through placing a new legal duty on local authorities”.
I also said that
“the most appropriate and proportionate way to deal with matters that relate to non-designated local historic environment assets is by providing a policy framework that promulgates and promotes best practice whilst allowing each local authority the flexibility to make the decisions best for them in relation to the management of the local historic environment.”
In commenting on the issue of expertise, I also invited the committee to note that Historic Scotland has established a reference group to examine the related issue of historic environment records. The report on historic environment records, to which I referred in my letter to the committee of 7 December, will shortly be with ministers for consideration.
Two of the reasons why I do not agree with amendment 16 are similar to reasons that relate to amendment 15. First, the amendment risks allowing planning authorities to settle for a lower level of engagement than is currently delivered by joint working arrangements, which are backed up by the strong ministerial policy framework. That is not to say that amendment 16 could be improved by making it a more onerous statutory duty, and I can see that Ken Macintosh has tried not to do that. The policy framework is the most suitable way to ensure progress.
There is a similar argument around the use of the term
“preservation of the historic environment”.
I have rehearsed the argument that one of the biggest challenges, particularly for planning authorities, is not about preservation but about how to manage changes in the historic environment to make sure that we care for it within a modern context.
A new legislative duty is not the right way to achieve the outcome of provision of expertise. COSLA shares that view because it can see that it would distort the priorities of our local authorities, and would probably also superimpose the arguments that I made earlier. Local development control through the planning system and ensuring access to suitable expertise is the appropriate mechanism for managing assets, but not necessarily on a nationally designated basis.
I understand where Ken Macintosh is coming from with amendment 16, and that he has tried to ensure that it has a light touch. However, there are complex issues involved about whether law should be used on personnel and jobs issues. I understand that this is a difficult time for many people, but I ask the committee to reflect on whether that is a principle that it wants to establish as a precedent that could be used in other legislation, not necessarily by this committee but by others.
Again, I thank the minister for her remarks. She said that amendment 16 is about jobs: it is about jobs, but not about individual jobs, important though they are and vulnerable though people will be. It is about the posts and the knowledge that goes with them. In that sense, the amendment is not about individuals but about the idea that local authorities need to pay sufficient attention to the historic environment in their staffing policies or, at least, in their policy planning through access to information. If the local authority does not have the posts in-house, it must ensure that it has access to the knowledge and expertise through voluntary organisations, pooled resources or whatever else.
There is a real danger that the lack of priority or attention given to the area could inadvertently—I am not saying that local authorities will deliberately or consciously turn their backs on the historic environment—allow the historic environment to slip lower down their list of priorities, and the result will be that we will be left with a void in certain areas, which might lose local historic knowledge and expertise that has been built up over many years. That would be a sad thing, and it would have a lot of implications as we develop policy in that area, particularly for any policy on building on the historic environment.
Amendment 16 could be interpreted in a number of ways as being for a centralised resource, but that would not necessarily be the case. In some cases, centralised expertise is a good resource on which to call but, for the most part, the issue is about planning authorities carrying out local duties and having access to local knowledge.
I do not accept the argument about settling for lower levels of engagement. I understand that that might be the case when specific, detailed policy statements are made at national level, but I do not accept that it would be the case under a general duty. Amendment 16 is a way of stressing the importance of the historic environment. I can understand why COSLA might not like it, but it is important that we say, at national level, that the historic environment across the whole of Scotland is a matter of which all local authorities must take account. We impose many other duties on local authorities and we give them many other priorities to which they must have regard. The historic environment should feature on that list, otherwise there is a chance—it has already happened in some places—that it will slip down the list of priorities. I will press amendment 16, not least to test committee opinion.
The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Against
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Abstentions
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 16 disagreed to.
Sections 30 to 32 agreed to
Long title agreed to.
That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. That was relatively quick and painless, minister.
11:22
Meeting continued in private until 13:28.