Subordinate Legislation
Draft Budget (Scotland) Act 2003 Amendment Order 2003
Agenda item 2 is consideration of a draft Scottish statutory instrument that seeks to amend the Budget (Scotland) Act 2003. Committee members have before them the budget documents, which set out the background to the proposed revision, and the draft instrument. Unlike previous revisions, which have set out a range of proposed changes, the proposed revision relates only to the Holyrood project and the change in the rate of capital charges. The Subordinate Legislation Committee considered the instrument yesterday and had nothing to report.
It might be worth explaining to members who are unfamiliar with the procedures and to members of the public—although I do not think that any members of the public are here—that the instrument in question is an affirmative instrument and cannot therefore come into force until it is approved by the Parliament. The committee will therefore debate the motion in the name of the Minister for Finance and Public Services, which asks the committee to recommend approval of the order. If it does so, the Parliamentary Bureau will lodge a motion that seeks parliamentary approval for the instrument.
I have decided to select an amendment in the name of Fergus Ewing for debate. I will ask the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services briefly to speak to the proposed instrument and to take any questions from members on it. I will then ask him to speak to and move the motion in the name of Andy Kerr. Fergus Ewing will then be asked to speak to and move his amendment and then we will move to open debate, which, under the standing orders, cannot last for more than 90 minutes—I hope that the debate will not take anywhere near as long as that. At the conclusion of the debate, Fergus Ewing will be asked whether he wishes to press his amendment. If he so wishes, I will put the question on the amendment. After a decision is reached on the amendment, I will put the question on the motion.
If members are clear about the procedure, I will ask the minister briefly to introduce the statutory instrument. Once he has done so, I will invite members to ask questions.
I am happy to attend this meeting. My predecessor told me that such sessions are always quiet, uncontroversial and peaceful. I have listened to the committee's deliberations and reflected on those remarks.
I would like to describe briefly one technical measure and a provision in relation to Holyrood, which the committee has already debated and considered at considerable length.
Every year, we amend the Budget Bill through secondary legislation to take account of in-year changes to the figures. Doing so ensures that the Executive is authorised to spend the money that it needs to spend during the financial year. Such budget revisions normally take place during the autumn and early spring, but this year we have decided to have a summer revision too, for purposes that will become obvious.
As members know, the cost of capital charge is a relatively new aspect of public sector budgeting that was introduced as part of our move to resource accounting and budgeting. The figure that Mr Mather picked up on earlier has now been reduced to 3.5 per cent as a result of a recommendation by the United Kingdom Government's Financial Reporting Advisory Board. That means that the Budget (Scotland) Act 2003 provides too many resources for cost of capital charges. The changes in the act will correct that.
I should stress that the changes do not reduce the Executive's spending power, nor do they release resources that can be spent elsewhere. Cost of capital charges are a non-cash adjustment and so will not affect the Executive's cash expenditure on programmes—that applies equally to Mr Mather's comments on Holyrood when he spoke about page 18 of the supporting documents.
We decided not to make those changes in the Budget Bill itself for two main reasons. First, as our process runs ahead of that of the Treasury, the final details had not been agreed when we laid the Budget Bill. Secondly, the change affects every budget with capital charges. We wanted to avoid changing more figures than was necessary between the draft budget and the Budget Bill.
Finally, there are advantages to making such changes in a separate summer revision, which should mean that this major classification change will not obscure more substantive changes that will be proposed in the autumn and spring budget revisions. Such an approach also means that the committee will have more opportunity to examine closely matters that will be of more interest.
The second reason for introducing a summer budget revision is, of course, the increase in the cost of the Holyrood project, which the committee has already considered at length. My comments are not intended to prolong that consideration, but to explain what the budget revision does. It is intended to take into account the increases in the cost of the Holyrood project that have been announced since the Budget Bill was laid.
I will explain the figures in the revision in detail. The increase of £58.113 million was agreed by the Finance Committee on 11 February. My predecessor agreed with the previous Finance Committee that we would not deal with that increase by amending the bill but would do so by revising the act at a later date. The second increase, of £37.7 million, was discussed by the committee this morning. Those changes together caused the increase of £95.813 million in the net capital budget, which is illustrated on page 18 of the supporting documentation.
There is also a reduction in the Parliament's operating costs to take account of the fact that we now have more accurate estimates available for those than we did when we were drafting the original bill. The total effect of the changes has been to increase the overall cash funding requirement for the Parliament project by £94.377 million.
If the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body had insufficient funds to pay its contractors, we are advised that the additional delays might cause further expense. However regrettable it might be, the revised costings reported by the Holyrood progress group make it necessary for us to react and to reduce the possibility of further delays. We therefore need to revise the budget and, as always, we are doing that through the Finance Committee. The increased funding for the Parliament building will not cause a reduction in any of our published spending plans for other programmes as the additional money can be found from the Executive's reserves. Obviously, however, it ultimately means that there will be less money available to fund other programmes, which is a source of deep disappointment to us all.
I realise that the cost of the Holyrood project has rightly been a source of mounting dismay among MSPs and people throughout Scotland. All my ministerial colleagues share and understand that sentiment. However, this budget revision has, unfortunately, become necessary to ensure that the project continues. Those are the reasons for bringing it to the committee today.
There will be an opportunity for a political debate on this matter once the motion and the amendment have been moved. Before that, however, I invite members to ask questions for factual clarification.
I thank the minister for his explanation of the instrument, which, essentially, comprises two parts: an extra £95 million for the Parliament building; and changes in accounting procedures relating to the move to resource accounting and budgeting. I support the second part, but I have problems with the first part. I accept that the Holyrood project must be completed, obviously, but I wonder whether the figure of £37.7 million—which, in effect, we are being asked to sanction as additional expenditure—is necessary in its entirety.
Serious concerns were expressed in the meeting, as the minister heard about the competence of the management, about the way in which the project has been delayed and about specific elements of the additional expenditure that we are being asked to sanction. It is fair to say that, during the first part of the meeting, members of all parties expressed serious concerns that have been put fairly and clearly to the witnesses.
Given that there is cross-party concern about the project and a sense of a lack of control over and confidence in it, does the minister accept that it would be sensible for him or for Andy Kerr, the Minister for Finance and Public Services, to sit on the progress group from now until the project is completed, particularly since, I understand, a Scottish Executive civil servant is involved with the progress group? Now that we have begun a new parliamentary session, is it not time to revisit the refusal of the Executive to put a minister on the group to ensure that, as far as possible, we look after the public purse and do not allow a penny of public money to be wasted?
I am not sure that that was a technical question for factual clarification, but I will allow you to respond, minister.
It sounded pretty political to me, convener. Tempting as it is, Mr Ewing, I will not be drawn on something that is not a matter for me. Let me try to answer the two technical questions. It is necessary for the Executive to ask the Finance Committee to make provision in relation to the matter because that is required of the Executive by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. As to the control of that, convener, I thought that you and your colleagues were making a pretty good fist of that this morning. That responsibility lies with the Finance Committee; it does not lie with the Scottish Executive. That is how these matters have always been dealt with. That was the case on 11 February this year, when the Finance Committee last met to consider this matter and my predecessor dealt with it.
I believe that Fergus Ewing has a technical supplementary.
I think that I am right in saying this, minister, so perhaps you could confirm it. I believe that there was nothing to prevent your bringing forward the two items involved in two statutory instruments.
Technically, we could have done so, yes.
I have a couple of technical questions. The first is about the rate at which the cost of capital charge is calculated. It has been reduced from 6 per cent to 3.5 per cent. Where do those figures come from? Does Westminster determine them? That seems a significant reduction—of almost half—at a period when inflation has not changed greatly.
My second question relates to the SPCB budget. I understand that the capital departmental expenditure limit relates to the increased costs, some of which we discussed this morning and some of which were discussed in February. The resource DEL is to do with transferring to resource accounting and budgeting. Why is that now showing up for the SPCB budget, but not for the budgets of various Executive departments?
I will let Richard Dennis deal with the precise, technical explanation, but the change in the rate reflects the reality of the budgeting systems that operate in that way throughout the United Kingdom. The recommendation to reduce the rate to 3.5 per cent came from the UK Government's Financial Reporting Advisory Board—FRAB. That was considered to be prudent accounting, to use the phrase that accountants so desire to use. Such matters are dealt with in that manner simply to ensure consistency of approach and purpose across the United Kingdom. I do not think that there is anything more to it than that.
Given my ignorance on the subject, I leave Richard Dennis to answer Elaine Murray's deeply technical second question.
Richard Dennis (Scottish Executive Finance and Central Services Department):
I will try to explain this better than I did at the previous committee meeting, when I also tried to explain the cost of capital charge. The reduction aims to keep the cost of capital charge at the same level as the discount rate. Following a review of its green book—its bible on the appraisal of capital projects—the Treasury decided to unbundle the old discount rate. A discount rate offers the means by which we assess whether we would rather have £5 today or £5 next year. Everyone would rather have it today, so there is a set rate at which benefits are discounted into the future.
The old discount rate was set at 6 per cent. That covered a large number of factors, including awareness of risk and awareness for something called optimism bias. When the Treasury reviewed the green book, it decided to separate out all those individual factors and the discount rate itself went down from 6 per cent to 3.5 per cent. When considering the cost of capital charge rate, the FRAB decided that it should change in line with the discount rate.
On the second question, on why the cost of capital charge and depreciation for the new Parliament building were not adequately covered in the original Budget (Scotland) Act 2003, we knew at the time of the act that there would have to be in-year changes to the SPCB's budget, and it seemed better to wait until the figures had reached a more accurate stage. Costs for capital and depreciation were built in for every other budget line at the time of the act. Those can be shown in the old-fashioned, large supporting documents that we produced for the act.
I am anxious to get some assistance in reconciling the figures on pages 18 and 19, on which I am somewhat at a loss. The final table at the bottom of page 18 shows a revised budget total of some £218 million as the summation of net operating budget and net capital budget. However, page 19 opposite shows the proposed revised funding requirement as some £203 million. Where has the £15 million difference gone?
I think that that is landscaping.
Richard Dennis will be able to answer why that difference exists, but let me first say something about how things are set up. To be honest, the Executive is asked to make a provision for the corporate body, but that is about it. With great respect, it is the job of the Finance Committee to scrutinise closely what the corporate body spends its money on. The new Presiding Officer has intimated his desire possibly to have a question time and other mechanisms so that members have the opportunity to carry out that scrutiny across the piece.
I suggest that the difference can probably be accounted for by landscaping costs.
Coming from the old school of double-entry bookkeeping, I look for a reconciliation. It seems unbelievable that we are presented with a document that has this sort of difference.
There is a fairly simple explanation. The numbers on page 18 are resource numbers. The numbers on page 19 are cash numbers, so they exclude non-cash items. The Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 and the budget acts are set up in such a way that we are required to seek parliamentary approval both for a resource budget and a cash budget. In a similar way, the order itself changes two parliamentary numbers to match the two numbers that are mentioned on pages 18 and 19.
The bottom of page 18 details the existing budget, the change proposed and the revised budget for the net capital budget for the Holyrood project. The striking thing is that the increased payment at this stage is not for £37.7 million, which is the 10 per cent increase in the cost of the total project, but for an almost 200 per cent uplift on top of what was sought. Does the Executive have any mechanism to flag up its disapproval when such increases from subsidiary budgets hit people's desks?
I have made clear our disappointment at what has happened. Frankly, I am like any other MSP or citizen of Scotland in that regard. I repeat that all that we can do is to make provision for those things and ask the committee to agree to them. Our role in such matters is laid down pretty clearly in the Parliament's standing orders.
I hope that this is a simple technical question for the deputy minister. He described the questioning to which the witnesses were submitted earlier this morning as being fairly robust. The minister will recall that, while he was present, the witnesses suggested that not one penny of the £37 million had actually been spent so far. There seemed to be thoughts, which were perhaps realistic, that some of the money might be recovered, although the witnesses were not able to give details of how much might be recouped from the consultants fees and so on. Should we really allocate and authorise the full sum at this stage? That might be like giving carte blanche and saying that no provisos accompany such allocations. Would it not be better to make available a lesser sum, until it is proved that the total sum will actually be needed?
There are two answers to that. First, we are making provision for, rather than setting out a sum that will be paid. We are making provision for, in the circumstances that the committee investigated earlier. Secondly, I am sure that all members would be hesitant about establishing an initial provision today that would mean that we would have to come back in September for yet another provision.
But there is no guarantee that we will not have to do that anyway. We have only a 95 per cent assurance.
You asked the questions, not me. In the lead-up to today, we were asked to make provision for that amount. That is our best estimate as to how to take the matter forward.
If members have no further technical questions, I invite the minister to move the motion, which is in the name of Andy Kerr.
Before moving the motion on the summer budget revision order, I simply state that, although it is understandable that some members would like more time for a debate on it, I have no doubt that there will be more debate on the order in the Parliament.
It is entirely appropriate for the Finance Committee to deal with the budget revision, given that the previous Finance Committee dealt with budget revisions from the inception of the Parliament—the procedure is not new. In my view, the Finance Committee's role in scrutinising the corporate body as well as the Scottish budget makes the committee particularly well placed to assess the revision.
The Executive is keen to ensure full scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament building project, as was shown by the First Minister's decision to establish inquiries led by the Auditor General and Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. Our view is that it does not reduce scrutiny for the revision to be considered by the Finance Committee; on the contrary, the system allows for appropriate and, if I may say so, informed scrutiny of the revision. The committee is the correct place for the revision to be considered.
It is important to reflect that my predecessor agreed with the previous Finance Committee that the February increases should not be put through by amending the Budget Bill during its passage, but in this way and at this time. I ask the committee to consider those points in assessing the revision order.
I move,
That the Finance Committee recommends that the draft Budget (Scotland) Act 2003 Amendment Order 2003 be approved.
In being asked to approve the draft statutory instrument that is before us, we are, in essence, being asked to do two things. First, we are asked to authorise the Scottish Executive to pay the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body an additional £95 million to meet the estimated costs of the Holyrood project, about which we heard earlier.
Secondly, we are asked to approve what is, as we have heard, an important, though largely technical accounting measure. In being asked to approve the draft order, we are asked to do something that could not be more politically controversial; namely, to approve more expenditure on the Scottish Parliament building. At the same time, we are being asked to approve something, which, if the convener will forgive me for saying so, could not be more dull and boring; namely, to approve an important accounting mechanism that I am sure we all support.
During this morning's evidence session on the Holyrood project, we elicited from the witnesses a number of serious concerns. I take it from the evidence that, whatever figure we authorise, the eventual figure will not be that of £37.7 million that was announced on 10 June. I, for one, was not persuaded as to the level of competence of some of the management and Mr Purvis made that point forcibly. I was persuaded by Dr Elaine Murray's probing questioning about why there is a contingency fund of £5.692 million—her arguments were convincing and the answers were unconvincing. I was also impressed by the elicitation of the information that, despite the fact that several months ago the project director promised to give us information on claims, it has not been provided to the committee.
I was also struck by the fact that, at various times, the witnesses indicated that the figures in the order, which would provide a huge extra sum of money and which we are asked to authorise, are vague, subject to doubt and based on estimates. The witnesses indicated that there might be a further rise in the cost of the Scottish Parliament building.
Those are issues of substance, but the reason for my amendment is simple. I believe that it is wrong that the Parliament will not have the opportunity to vote on the increase in funding that is sought for the Scottish Parliament building. It is wrong that we are being asked to pass that measure and at the same time to pass an important measure about which we all agree. In response to my technical question, the minister was good enough to confirm that the procedure that he followed in introducing the order is not in any way mandatory, but that it is discretionary. The minister confirmed that it was open to the Executive to introduce two draft instruments—one to deal with the technical, dull, non-controversial but worthy matter, and another to deal with what is without doubt the most contentious issue in Scotland today; namely, the cost of the Holyrood project.
Of necessity, and to develop my arguments, I have dealt with some issues of substance, but my amendment is really about procedure—it would allow the full Parliament to debate the Holyrood project, without the issue being lumped together with other matters.
In conclusion, I have something to say to the newer members of the Finance Committee; it is not meant to be patronising, but is something that I was unaware of when I first became a member of the committee. It is not possible for the Finance Committee to amend a statutory instrument. If it were, I would have lodged an amendment that would have called for the order to be taken in two parts. The only procedure that the committee has regarding the instrument is that of the reasoned amendment to the motion. I move the amendment in a cross-party, non-political way in the hope that the members of all parties, who rightly probed and elicited serious concerns this morning, will now support the reasoned amendment, which basically says that we should have had a debate on only the Holyrood project.
I move, as an amendment to motion S2M-142, in the name of Mr Andy Kerr, to insert at end:
"but, in so doing, regrets that the Scottish Executive has made the request for additional resources in a manner that does not provide the Parliament with the opportunity of having a separate and distinct vote on the proposed extra cash for the Holyrood building project."
The motion and the amendment have been moved, so we can proceed to open debate.
Is the instrument coming in front of us this week?
Yes.
I agree that there must be an opportunity for the Parliament to debate what has happened with the Holyrood project. However, I do not feel that I am in possession of the full facts for such a debate. If it is necessary for the budget to be approved at this stage to allow the work to be completed, we must bear in mind the Presiding Officer's advice that it is important that there are no further delays. I am not sure whether it would be appropriate to have a debate now in Parliament about the project, because we are not in possession of sufficient facts.
I agree that the issue should be discussed in the Parliament. However, what would be the result of our agreeing to the amendment? Would our doing so have an effect on what happens, or would it be only a protest statement? Perhaps Fergus Ewing could deal with that question in his summing up.
I sympathise with much of what Fergus Ewing said and I think that many committee members feel disturbed by the implications of what we have heard during the meeting. However, it is also a matter of record that Fergus Ewing might be two years and £143 million too late. My understanding is that two years ago the Conservative group tried to cap the then costs at about £195 million. Further, I understand that the group was supported only by Dorothy Grace-Elder, late of the Scottish National Party.
That is wrong.
That is the information that I was given. It appears to me that there was an opportunity at an earlier stage to tackle matters of cost and put them to a vote. We seem a bit far down the road to be doing that now.
A debate should be on the conduct of the project management and on the corporate body's scrutiny of that. There should not be posturing about the money that the Executive provides. The minister who is before us is not responsible for how that is spent. I do not see what we would gain from having separate orders. The motion represents a natural process for budget revision and I think that that is fair. If we seek separate orders and a separate debate, our natural progression down that path would be to vote against the Presiding Officer's recommendation, which is that it is impossible for the project to be capped. We learned this morning, to our country's cost, that the project cannot now be halted. I cannot envisage what the Finance Committee would gain from supporting the amendment.
I make a further point for Ted Brocklebank, regarding the vote taken on 5 April 2000. An amendment was lodged by Gordon Jackson and included the clause
"to complete the project by the end of 2002 within a total budget of £195 million".—[Official Report, 5 April 2000; Vol 5, c 1305.]
It is not correct to claim that the only people who tried to cap the budget at that stage were the Conservatives.
It was open to Fergus Ewing to lodge a motion to reject the order. That course may still be open to Fergus Ewing or the SNP when the order comes before the Parliament, should they so wish. An opportunity is still open to us to propose rejection of the order. Rejection would have serious financial implications for the Executive and serious consequences for the progress of the Holyrood project—and might include an increase in the cost.
However, Fergus Ewing's amendment is about the procedural device of coupling the debate about the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body's budget increase, and other budget increases. The fact is that, in the past, the Finance Committee has bundled various financial proposals and adjustments. It has dealt with the full budget comprising all the issues. While it has always been open to the Finance Committee to probe each aspect, the committee tends to have decided on the issues in the context of a whole budget. There is nothing unusual in this procedure.
If there is a wish to have a debate specifically on the budget of the Holyrood project, members can pursue that route, either in the context of any parliamentary discussion of this statutory instrument or in the normal way. However, I do not think that going down the procedural route, which Fergus Ewing is suggesting we do, is the best approach.
Finally, the Presiding Officer indicated to us that we would receive monthly reports on the project in future. Obviously, an issue for us to consider that is quite separate from the statutory instrument is how all the money—not only the additional £37.7 million—is spent this year on the Holyrood project. We have an opportunity to keep the matter under fairly close scrutiny and the issues that have been raised by Fergus Ewing and others can be pursued in that context.
I want to speak in favour of the amendment. I would like the committee to exercise this opportunity to put down a marker and underline our concern and increase the prospect of there being an even tighter management of cost and more flexibility on the part of suppliers and fee-earners regarding capping their costs.
Essentially, we have an opportunity to further record our dismay and anger at the fact that the Scottish Parliament had an open-ended contract imposed on it at the outset of the Holyrood project. That contract has caused damage in terms of wasted time, low morale and loss of credibility with the public.
I am not convinced that the amendment is an effective way of laying down such a marker. I suggest to Fergus Ewing that he should instead move that the committee throw the motion out. That would be a stronger marker.
If there are no further contributions, I ask Fergus Ewing to sum up.
I always try to observe the rules of the radio programme "Just a Minute"—to avoid repetition, hesitation and deviation—so I will try to be brief and address what appear to be the main points.
Why did we not move to reject the motion? Because, as I said before, we approve of part of the document. Why would we reject a document that, although it contains something with which we disagree, contains something with which we agree?
Ted Brocklebank talked about a cap. The amendment does not propose a cap; it seeks to give us the facility to challenge whether the spending of the additional £37.7 million is absolutely necessary. We agreed today that we have serious doubts about whether it is all necessary but, at the same time, we are all responsible enough to accept that the project must now be finished and that some more money is required. It is not a question of a cap; we are having a mature debate about the necessary amount of money. I was not convinced that the figure that was put forward today was that necessary amount.
I am sorry that I have not been able to persuade other members to support my amendment. That has not come as a massive surprise to me, given my four years' experience of committees. So be it.
Given that the minister could have introduced two draft statutory instruments, can he say whether, if there is any future request for extra money for the Holyrood project by draft statutory instrument—fingers crossed that there will not be, but it cannot be ruled out, as we heard today—we can have that request in a distinct statutory instrument? If we can, the Parliament and the committee will be able to call for a separate debate about the issue that has bedevilled the Parliament and all of us.
On Mr Ewing's final point, I am happy to have my officials discuss with clerks how best to do that. My understanding is that we have always tried to agree with the committee a simple and transparent process. We will certainly consider that.
In some ways, it would not make a blind bit of difference to the Scottish Executive if the committee were minded to reject the motion. It would not affect the Scottish Executive's programme; indeed, I could argue that rejecting the motion would leave the Executive with more money to get on with its programmes and we could easily bring back the capital charges in an autumn revision.
However, on the basis of the SPCB's advice to the Executive, such an action would irrevocably slow down, if not stop, building on the site. It would cause the very delays about which the Presiding Officer has expressed such concern and it would therefore increase the cost of the project even further. Mr Ewing and others ought to think about that very carefully, given the strong remarks made by the Presiding Officer.
I do not therefore think that it is advisable for the committee to go down the route that Mr Ewing is advocating. He might want, with colleagues, to cross-examine members of the SPCB closely when they come before the committee each month. That strikes me as a more effective way to get at the difficulties that are to be encountered and dealt with than having what would, frankly, be a political debate in the Parliament. I therefore suggest to the committee that the best way to go today would be to pass the revision and ensure that proper scrutiny takes place through the channels that were established earlier in the meeting.
Mr Ewing, do you want to press your amendment?
Yes, please.
In that case, we move to a vote. The question is, that amendment S2M-142.1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Mather, Mr Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Purvis, Mr Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Abstentions
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 1.
Amendment disagreed to.
The question is, that motion S2M-142, in the name of Tavish Scott, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Purvis, Mr Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Against
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Abstentions
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Mather, Mr Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 1, Abstentions 2.
Motion agreed to.
As we are required to report our recommendation to the Parliament and the report is required tomorrow, it will be very brief. I propose that we seek to agree the report's text by e-mail correspondence this afternoon. I hope that members will be content with that suggestion.
Members indicated agreement.
In that case, minister, we can release you.
Thank you.