Minister
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1822, in the name of Jack McConnell, on the appointment of a minister. Members who wish to speak in the debate should please press their request-to-speak buttons. I call the First Minister to speak to and move the motion.
I begin by thanking Frank McAveety and Mary Mulligan for their service as Executive ministers. While our Opposition has run down Scotland, Frank McAveety has been responsible for the establishment of a tourism marketing budget for Scotland that puts tourism marketing spend at twice the rate south of the border, which is no mean achievement. He has also been responsible for producing a strategy for bringing international events to Scotland and has put in place a strategy for sports facilities throughout Scotland that shows our ambitions for Scotland and how we want our country to succeed.
Mary Mulligan has contributed much to the work of the Executive and Parliament over the past five years. In particular, I acknowledge her leadership through the committee system of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill last winter and spring, in the teeth of opposition from the Conservatives and the nationalists who were totally opposed to communities' taking back more control of their environments.
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) rose
The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 gives people real rights and powers and allows them to see the action that is being taken to address problems. Mary Mulligan's record in taking the bill through Parliament is to be admired. I thank her and Frank McAveety for their efforts.
However, the main purpose of today's motion is to propose that Parliament make Tom McCabe an Executive minister—I propose that for a number of reasons. First, I believe that Tom McCabe has a record, both from before he was a member of Parliament and since, that indicates not just that he is competent, but that he will be innovative and imaginative and that he will progress the agenda in his portfolio in a way that will benefit Scotland. He is one of the few MSPs to have achieved 2 per cent efficiency savings year on year in a public organisation, which he did when he was leader of South Lanarkshire Council. Also, in his time as convener of the Finance Committee, Tom McCabe showed willingness and ability to work with members of other parties to ensure that Parliament's finance systems and budgets worked effectively.
However, it has been in his time as the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care that we have seen how Tom McCabe can galvanise an issue and make progress on it in the interest of Scotland—not just in addressing key problems that exist in many communities throughout Scotland in relation to provision of dental services and not just in relation to improving standards of care for elderly citizens but, more recently, in leading the biggest consultation exercise that Parliament or the Executive has ever undertaken. The consultation on smoking in public places has been a huge success for those on both sides of the argument. Over the next few weeks, it will lead us to make a decision in Cabinet, on 10 November, on the action that we will take to ban smoking in public places and to produce legislation as speedily as possible.
It is also important for us to recognise that, if the motion is successful, Tom McCabe will be joining a team that works in the interests of Scotland—a team that, in five years of devolution, has seen standards in our schools, the level of performance of our teachers and education staff and the level of investment in our education system rise every year.
The First Minister did not want to take an intervention from me earlier.
Will the First Minister tell us why it is that more people are leaving school now without any qualifications than was the case five years ago?
We heard from the Conservatives during the summer that too many young Scots were getting qualifications—that was their argument back in August. They resent the fact that young people throughout Scotland are now able to get qualifications that suit them and they are envious of the fact that we have managed to implement a policy that reverses what the Tories did to education in Scotland; we have brought vocational education back into our schools so that all young people have a chance to maximise their talents. That policy was destroyed by the Tories' educational policies in the 1980s. We have given education an opportunity to work for Scotland again.
The work of the ministerial team has also improved the Scottish health service. It is not just that there are new facilities and centres in communities throughout Scotland; the longest waits in our health service are coming down, lives are being saved and there are more doctors and nurses in our health service to ensure that people have the highest-quality care.
Tom McCabe will join that team and will ensure that we have the budgets with which to succeed. Through the budgets that we allocate, police numbers in Scotland will reach their highest-ever levels year on year. The crime clear-up rate in Scotland is higher than it has been since the second world war. We have taken action in legislation and in allocation of resources to tackle drug barons and the most serious criminals in Scotland, and to reform our courts to ensure that such people are prosecuted properly.
Those achievements are all financed by the budget for which Tom McCabe will be responsible. He will also have responsibility for other matters, not the least of which is our external relations strategy, which is our initiative to promote Scotland abroad, to represent our interests in Europe and to ensure that we attract fresh talent to our shores.
Will the First Minister clarify where ministerial responsibility lies for external affairs? There is some confusion on the Scottish Executive website about whether that responsibility rests with Mr McCabe or with Patricia Ferguson as the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport. Will the First Minister tell us what responsibilities Mr McCabe and Patricia Ferguson will have?
I will be delighted to do that, and I am not surprised that Mr Swinney is a bit confused. We have enough ambitions for Scotland to share responsibility for external relations between the two ministers. We have so much to do for Scotland and so much in the way of ambition for Scotland that we are ensuring that all our ministers are involved in promoting Scotland at home and abroad.
If the motion is successful, the Labour and Liberal Democrat team that works for Scotland will ensure that we have efficient and well-managed budgets from which money is spent on the right things and invested for Scotland in the long term. That team will not support the Alex in Wonderland economics that have returned to Scotland from London to haunt us again. Nor will this team go down the road that is proposed by the Conservatives and drop our fresh talent scheme that will promote Scotland and ensure that we have the talent in our country to prosper in the years ahead. This team will continue to work for Scotland. I hope that after today's vote Tom McCabe will be a member of it. That will ensure that we have efficient budgets and it will also ensure that we deliver our ambitions.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that Mr Tom McCabe be appointed as a Minister.
That glowing tribute to Tom McCabe makes me wonder why one of Jack McConnell's first acts when he became First Minister was to sack him from the cabinet. However, that tribute was as nothing compared to the glowing tribute that we heard to Frank McAveety this morning, which leads me to my next question: Why did he get the boot? Surely it was not all down to pie and beans in the canteen.
I do not oppose the motion out of any personal animosity towards Tom McCabe; I wish him well in his new post and I am absolutely sure that he will be as able as Andy Kerr was to distribute the portion of our money that Gordon Brown decides to give us back in pocket money each year. I leave it to Tom McCabe to work out whether that was a commendation or not.
As someone who always likes to look at the bright side of any situation, I have at last managed to come up with an advantage in having a Parliament that has no responsibility to raise the money that it spends, no power to set its own tax rate, no ability to take effective measures to stimulate economic growth and none of the powers that normal grown-up Parliaments and Governments the world over take for granted. The advantage is that there is limited scope for the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform to mess up. Given the Executive's track record, that can only be a good thing. Jack McConnell is shaking his head and writing furiously; it seems that he clearly wishes to reserve Tom McCabe's right to mess up.
I oppose the motion more for what it does not say than for what it does say. To be frank, when we consider the big challenges that face Scotland and the failure, over the lifetime of Jack McConnell's Administration, of his ministers to meet the challenges and to deliver real improvements, it beggars belief that the only new face—if it does not stretch the imagination too much to refer to him as such—is Tom McCabe. Jack McConnell's whole approach to the crisis in the health service appears to be to change the face at the top, rather than to change the policy that is doing all the damage to our health service.
If we follow the First Minister's flawed logic, it raises a host of questions about the rest of his Executive. Given that we have an economy that is limping along behind that of the rest of the United Kingdom, is the First Minister saying seriously that Jim Wallace is up to scratch as the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning? The business community certainly does not seem to think so. The prison population continues to rise, despite repeated promises to reduce it, so is there really no argument for giving someone else a chance to honour the Government pledges that Cathy Jamieson only ever seems to break? When six out of 10 head teachers say that indiscipline in our schools is a serious problem—despite our having been told for years that it is one of the Executive's top educational priorities—might not it be time for a new broom in the Education Department?
The answer to all those questions might well be yes; but of course it is not as easy as that for Jack McConnell, because he does not have much choice before him. In yesterday's newspapers, one of his closest allies—which is usually code for Andy Kerr—was quoted as saying:
"Jack only had limited room to manoeuvre. It's not like the back benches are packed with talented MSPs bursting to get into the Cabinet."
In other words, he said, "If people think the ministers are bad, just look at how awful the rest of us are." Well—it is good to know that there is at least one thing on which those of us on this side of the chamber can agree with the First Minister.
Will the member give way?
Not just now. [Interruption.] Clearly, Jack McConnell does not think that his back benchers are talented enough to be in the Cabinet, so far be it from me to give them a platform.
The people of Scotland might reasonably look at the Executive's performance and conclude that the reshuffle should have taken the form of radical surgery rather than a game of musical chairs. However, I suspect that what they want to see even more than new faces at the Cabinet table is new policy, especially in the health service. The truth is that replacing Malcolm Chisholm with Andy Kerr will not in itself result in the reprieve of a single one of the hospital services that currently face the axe. The new minister might well be able to shout louder than the old one, but the First Minister should be aware that all the people who are campaigning all over Scotland to save their local hospitals will not be bullied into submission. They want the Executive to get a grip on the NHS; they want local services where they are appropriate and they want a moratorium on the centralisation of services until there is in place a clear national strategy that points the way ahead. That is the real change that the people want in the health service; it would have been far more effective than the poor excuse for a reshuffle that we witnessed on Monday.
I have from my French class in school two enduring memories: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose; and a poem aptly entitled "La pluie"—the rain. That, to me, characterises the Cabinet reshuffle. It is more and yet more of the depressing grey sameness. My objection to the motion is not based on any dislike of Mr McCabe; what he deserves in abundance is pity. The first minister says that the reshuffle is a refreshing exercise, but it is nothing of the sort; rather, it is a parade of the recycled, redesignated and recalled cronies of the First Minister.
The former Minister for Health and Community Care, who was last week—while facing a Conservative vote of no confidence—publicly endorsed and effusively applauded by the First Minister, wakes up this week to find the First Minister's reshuffle dagger in his back and that he has been sidelined to the communities portfolio. In his place is Mr Kerr, the Brylcreemed acolyte of the First Minister; a man whose capacity to shine has so far been restricted to the pomade on his hair.
Even more perversely, the one member of the Executive who has gained respect as a colourful, gutsy and combative performer—Margaret Curran—is rewarded by being stuck in a job that restricts her talents to standing up in the chamber and prating parrotwise, "Formally moved." What an advertisement for government in Scotland. My advice to Mr McConnell's ministerial colleagues is this; "If you earn the First Minister's public support, be very afraid, and reach for the hair gel—it may be your only hope. And in the singularly unlikely event that you display any ability, you are done for."
The people of Scotland, who are open about their disappointment with devolution and saddened that the great wave of emotion that accompanied the inception of this Parliament has failed to translate into a better health service, into improved literacy, numeracy and discipline in our schools and into a business-friendly and buoyant economy will derive little comfort from the new ministerial assemblage. The people of Scotland yearn for spark, vibrancy and innovation. The Cabinet is atrophied, stale and devoid of vision. It is thirled to policies that do not work and fearful of policies that might work.
Nowhere is that paradox more apparent than in this morning's business. Today, we were to have a statement about efficiency in Government—no doubt a glowing account of all the so-called economies in public spending that the Executive is going to deliver. Instead, we have a dazzling display of Government inefficiency, with the First Minister's announcement about his bloated Cabinet—oversized, overpaid and, most regrettably of all, over there on the Government benches.
Is that the same First Minister who said, when announcing his ministerial team last year:
"I believe that a reduction in salaried Cabinet Ministers and deputies was justified"?
So much for that hollow declaration of prudence. After another year of Executive failure, the self-awarded prize is to shell out another £30,000 in ministerial salaries. What hypocritical bilge.
The Executive is beyond saving by dint of a mere Cabinet reshuffle. We need new policies that will work for Scotland, but there is not the remotest hope that that will happen for as long as we have that Cabinet.
There being no requests to speak from the floor, we will move to closing speeches. I call Brian Monteith.
I rise to support the opposition to the First Minister's motion. Because of procedural difficulties, we have to propose amendments to the motion to appoint new ministers, but there are of course a host of ministers in the reshuffle about whom we could talk. Johann Lamont and Rhona Brankin are not the only ones; we could also talk about Patricia Ferguson and Tom McCabe. As Nicola Sturgeon said, a minister who was already sacked once by Jack McConnell has shown—with his return to the Cabinet as Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform—that he truly has bounce-back ability.
Who is to say that the former Labour don from South Lanarkshire is not the consigliere for the job? After all, he will have to tell the other local bosses in the Labour family that they are getting no more money and will have to increase their council tax. If they do not, he will see to it that, politically, they will sleep with the fishes. This is not personal; it is strictly business. Tony Soprano could do no better a job in Don McConnell's Cabinet than could Signor McCabe. We merely use his name to point out the sickness at the heart of the McConnell regime.
The regime has the wrong philosophy of life. After all, it was the First Minister who said on taking office that he would "do less better". That reminds me of the true architectural genius Mies van der Rohe who, when describing minimalism, said, "Less is more." The First Minister's credo is the opposite: for him, more is less. We have had more spending on health, but less health care; more spending on education, but less school discipline; more spending on tourism than is the case in England, but fewer tourists; and more ministers with limousine lifestyles, but fewer positive results. If ministers were on performance pay, it would be they would face cuts, not our hospitals.
The reshuffle was an opportunity missed: it was an opportunity to show that less government is the best government because less government means more self-reliance, more personal responsibility and more economic growth, which would give our people the room to breathe, to excel themselves and to prosper. If the reshuffle was about more tax cuts, more services and more freedom, that would be fine. If it was about fewer Executive initiatives, interventions and illusion, we would support the First Minister. However, it is none of those things and, for that reason, the Conservatives will oppose the reshuffle by voting proudly against it.
We live in a democracy that imposes a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances. It also imposes an independent judiciary, an elected legislature and an Executive that is accountable to this legislature. In turn, such a democracy imposes responsibilities as well as endowing rights. Clearly, in normal circumstances, it is the right of the Executive to select and appoint its Cabinet. However, it is also the Executive's responsibility to take account of the views not only of Parliament but of the mood outwith it in the country. To do otherwise is not an exercise of right, but an act of irresponsibility. The Executive is acting not as is fitting in a democracy; it is acting as if it was an elected dictatorship.
Sadly, the actions of the Executive are not about exercising its right; they are about imposing its will. Clearly, it is doing so at a time when its will is opposed not only by many of its back benchers and the Opposition, but in the country. I am thinking not only of the mood in the country but of the mood of Labour Party members and their representatives down in London. It is clear from the precursor to the reshuffle that Mary Mulligan is intent on continuing the fight, but there is no change in policy: the Executive is attempting to drive through its will against the mood and the wishes of the people, which is unacceptable.
We had the unedifying spectacle—indeed, the humiliating spectacle—of an elected minister of the Scottish Parliament having to go down south, cap in hand, after having been summoned to answer for his sins. It is unacceptable that that should happen, given that all members of this Parliament are supposed to be rising to the occasion and to be raising their game.
If the reshuffle was supposed to signal a shift in policy, it would be the Executive's right to choose whomsoever it wishes, but when the reshuffle is simply a shuffling of the pack to continue the Executive's failed policies, that is unacceptable. It is the duty of the Opposition to oppose the reshuffle. In seeking to act irresponsibly, the Executive is abusing its rights.
What was the precursor to the change in the Administration? It was Mary Mulligan's resignation. Why did she resign? Because she wishes to continue the fight against policies that the Executive is imposing—policies that are opposed by people but which the Executive is forcing on them.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment. What about the changes that have been made? The First Minister has simply moved around his most loyal supporters. Surely we are supposed to have a Cabinet of the Executive, not a version of Lanarkshire friends reunited—albeit in a different environment? Appointment to the Cabinet is supposed to be based on ability and talent, not on servility and biddability. It serves Parliament ill that the Executive seeks to impose its will in such a manner.
What have the two strands of the coalition done? The Lib Dems claim that they are making the difference, but what difference are they making on health policy? We saw their party leader Charles Kennedy wax lyrical about the inadequacies of the Executive, but we now see the Lib Dems propping up and maintaining not only a shift in policy but the continuation of a Cabinet that is intent on enforcing that policy. Are they going to kowtow to Mr McConnell or are they going to accept the directions of their party leader? Propping up a failed administration is unacceptable for the Lib Dems. They are equally culpable and their sins will not be forgiven.
What about the First Minister? He has spoken in this chamber about raising the game. Everybody has taken cognisance of that. I am not aware of anyone from any party who does not accept it. However, it is equally incumbent upon him to raise his game, but he is signally not doing that. He is not imposing new ministers in order to improve matters; he is rewarding those who have failed by reassigning them. He is not bringing in fresh talent to drive forward new policies; he is seeking to drive forward the policies that have failed miserably in order to secure the support of his own back benchers, never mind anybody else.
In raising his game, the First Minister has to remember that this is not North Lanarkshire Council, nor is it Strathclyde Regional Council writ large. This is the debating chamber of the national Parliament of Scotland—he has a duty to act accordingly. He talks about Scotland being the best small nation in the world, but all we can say is, "Not a chance under this Administration." We oppose the motion.
I am proud enough of Scotland to say that I believe that we are the best small nation in the world. Even if the SNP were in charge, I would still believe that Scotland was the best small nation in the world. That is what patriotism is all about.
I remind Mr MacAskill that it is not Labour or the Liberal Democrats in this chamber who take instructions from a leader in London. It was not my party leader, Tony Blair, or Jim Wallace's party leader, Charles Kennedy, who described the performance of MSPs as mediocre and said that that was why he had to come back and lead his party again. Not only are our party leaders prepared to let us run this Parliament, but they support us in ensuring that Scotland is taken forward. They believe in this Parliament and the policies that we pursue.
It is telling that this morning neither of the two Opposition parties has put up a new policy idea as an alternative. They carp, criticise, complain and attack personalities, but produce not one new policy idea.
Both Opposition parties talked about the importance of business to the economy. It does not behove members of the Parliament to describe the £30 billion budget for which we will be responsible as "pocket money". Not one person in Scotland—not even my good friend Tom Hunter—would describe that money as pocket money. We have a duty and a responsibility to manage the budget, to deliver efficiencies and reforms and to make that money work for the people of Scotland. Not one business in Scotland would deny that our responsibilities for research and development, for education and skills, for transport and for promoting Scotland at home and abroad are important in taking forward business and giving real opportunities.
As ever, Annabel Goldie delivered a witty address. I only hope that the condition of Brian Monteith and Bill Aitken up top does not preclude their ever serving, with or without hair gel, in a Conservative Cabinet.
One of our most experienced and talented ministers has been appointed to take over the ministerial portfolio with responsibility for delivering affordable housing and a better planning system. Given that businesses throughout Scotland want us to act on those issues and view them as central to their future prosperity, to describe that appointment as sidelining is very wrong indeed.
This Cabinet will have Tom McCabe to deliver a more efficient budget and to ensure that we are represented well at home and abroad. It will take forward that agenda and use the powers that we have to promote Scottish businesses, giving them the skills, back-up and support that they need. It will also ensure that we have planning and housing systems that no longer act as a restriction on growth, but allow our businesses to grow. I whole-heartedly endorse the nomination of Tom McCabe to his new position. I ask the Parliament to support that nomination and to back the policies that will take Scotland forward.
The question is, that motion S2M-1822, in the name of Jack McConnell, on the appointment of a minister, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Abstentions
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
The result of the division is: For 62, Against 36, Abstentions 4.
Motion agreed to.
That the Parliament agrees that Mr Tom McCabe be appointed as a Minister.