Official Report 950KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20135, in the name of Russell Findlay, on a motion of no confidence. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button. I call Russell Findlay to speak to and move the motion.
14:31
Today, my party brings forward a motion of no confidence in the justice secretary. I will now explain why that is a necessary course of action.
In my four years at Holyrood, I have had more dealings with Angela Constance than with any other member of the Government. Our encounters have usually been courteous, sometimes fiery and mostly serious. We fundamentally disagree on the Scottish National Party’s approach to justice. That can be defined as seeking to excuse criminal behaviour, which I believe fails crime victims and Scotland’s law-abiding majority.
I disagree with the Government’s closure of police stations and releasing hundreds of prisoners early. I disagree with gender self-identification in the justice system and weak bail laws. I disagree with unjust under-25 sentencing guidelines and a £1 billion price tag for a new prison. I also disagree with the Government’s position on grooming gangs.
However, this motion and today’s vote are not about the fact that we disagree. They are about the conduct of the justice secretary. This is about the fundamental importance of honesty and integrity in Government and in Parliament. No matter the attempts of John Swinney, Kate Forbes and other SNP members, Angela Constance’s conduct is inexcusable and her position is no longer tenable.
The starting point for today’s proceedings was 16 September, when my colleague Liam Kerr lodged an amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. That amendment sought to begin the necessary work of establishing a grooming gangs inquiry—an inquiry that would answer questions about the sickening sexual exploitation of children, and that would establish why so many were so badly failed, why abusers acted with impunity and why whistleblowers were silenced. The amendment was imperfect, but it was the only mechanism at our disposal.
In rejecting it, Angela Constance cited leading abuse expert Professor Alexis Jay. The justice secretary said that Professor Jay shared her view that a grooming gangs inquiry was not needed. However, Professor Jay did not say that—and she did not say that because that is not her position.
Ten days later, Professor Jay emailed the Government to object. At that point, the justice secretary was obligated to correct the parliamentary record, as stipulated by the Scottish ministerial code. She had 20 days in which to do so, but she did not.
Instead of coming clean, it was decided that a correction would be made to the online minutes of the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group, which is buried on an obscure Government web page and was not posted until 18 November.
Then, on 26 November—more than two months after misrepresenting Professor Jay—Angela Constance doubled down. She publicly denied that she had misrepresented Professor Jay. When asked whether she had misrepresented Professor Jay, Angela Constance said:
“No, certainly not. I gave an accurate quote and indeed the correspondence that Ms Jay sent to me acknowledged that the quote that I gave was accurate.”
I note that we are not allowed to use the word “lie” or to call anyone a “liar”, so I will not. However, it is little wonder that Professor Jay sent another email to the Government on the very same day, in which she said:
“The current position is unsatisfactory for me.”
After all of that—misleading the public, Parliament and grooming gang victims—Angela Constance has still not admitted her mistake. She has still not corrected the record and she has still not apologised. That is the problem. It is not that a mistake has happened, but that Angela Constance, John Swinney and the whole Government want to pretend that it never happened and that it does not really matter. Well, it did happen, and it should matter.
Many will see this tawdry defence of the indefensible for what it is—the typical actions of a calculating and cynical Government. The First Minister can look grooming gang victims in the eye and tell them that he cares, only to destroy his own warm words with his cold inaction.
I have met Taylor, who, from the age of 13, was drugged and gang raped, and who was failed by the authorities that should have protected her. A recurring theme around grooming gangs is the existence of a conspiracy of silence in which police, social workers and others fail victims over fears of being branded racist. Survivors say that there is evidence of institutional cover-up. They are forced to battle for records, many of which no longer exist or have been severely redacted. Taylor raised that exact issue in her meeting with John Swinney on 9 December. In a letter to all MSPs, Taylor’s mother says:
“Within 24 hours of leaving Bute House, the suppressed email from Prof Alexis Jay was made public.”
Do John Swinney and Angela Constance really not understand what message their conduct sends to victims who already lack trust in authority? When he became First Minister, John Swinney made big statements about restoring the relationship between the public and politicians. Earlier this year, he said that he would
“renew public trust in politics”.
He has the opportunity to do so today; however, we all know that he will not.
Even though he will not do the right thing, each of us can do the right thing. Here is the choice: we can say that it is acceptable for ministers to mislead and to cover up, or we can say that there should be reasonable consequences for doing so. This is about truth; this is about respect; this is about simple decency. Therefore, I urge every MSP who is here today to vote to remove the justice secretary for misleading the Parliament, the public and grooming gang victims.
I move,
That the Parliament has no confidence in the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, in light of her failures in candour and openness in her misrepresentation and subsequent misleading statements made to the Parliament with regards to Professor Alexis Jay and grooming gangs.
14:37
The safety and wellbeing of children in Scotland is a paramount concern of all of us as members of Parliament, no matter our politics or whether we are members of an Opposition party or a supporter of the Scottish Government. The safety and wellbeing of children in Scotland matter to us all.
Like many members here today, I have spoken to survivors of abuse to hear about their experiences—Russell Findlay has quoted some of my recent experience in this respect. I discussed those issues with Taylor and her family last week, in one of many conversations that I have had with abuse survivors. There is no doubt in my mind, and it is obvious to all, that many people have been fundamentally failed by the system over the years. That is shameful, and facing up to that awful reality has underpinned the approach of the Scottish Government.
Every member of my Government is committed to doing everything possible to deliver justice and the possibility of some element of closure for victims of the past, as well as to keeping safe the children of today and tomorrow. That sentiment anchors the steps that have been taken by my Government in addressing those issues—and those issues are being addressed, contrary to what Mr Findlay has just said to Parliament.
First, we established a year ago the expert, multi-agency national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group, which is considering previous inquiries, evidence and practices across social work, education, the police and healthcare in order to agree further actions and recommendations for national improvement and reform. Professor Alexis Jay, who has always been a member of that group, has now been appointed as its independent chair.
Secondly, an independent national review of the response to group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation in Scotland is being established. That will be undertaken by the Care Inspectorate, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education and Healthcare Improvement Scotland. The inspectorates are statutorily independent of Government and the agencies that they scrutinise, and they are able to compel public authorities to provide information that they request. Professor Jay has agreed to provide expert advice at key stages of the process.
Alongside that work, Police Scotland is continuing to review child sexual abuse and exploitation cases. I received an update from Police Scotland on that important work when we met recently, and Opposition leaders and spokespeople from across the chamber have been offered a briefing with Police Scotland on that work in the new year.
We will also draw on the published evidence and reports of the independent Scottish child abuse inquiry, which was established by Angela Constance in 2015 and which has been considering the abuse of children in the care of the state. The inquiry has now commenced phase 10 and has made it clear that there is scope to hear and act on evidence relating to group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation where that falls within its terms of reference. All that activity underlines the seriousness with which my Government takes the issue and our determination to leave no stone unturned, guided by expert opinion.
On several occasions in the chamber, we have discussed the comments that are at the heart of today’s debate, so I will reiterate what has already been stated. During stage 3 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, in relation to Liam Kerr’s amendment that would have meant that the new victims commissioner should carry out research into child sexual abuse, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs raised awareness of the work that was led by Professor Alexis Jay. The cabinet secretary noted specifically that Professor Jay had been the chair of an independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales, and drew on a comment, made in the past, that, in regard to child sexual abuse and exploitation,
“people should just get on with it”.
Following correspondence with Professor Jay, it was minuted at the strategic group’s meeting in October that the quote was correct and was from January but was not made in relation to the amendment or the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. In the debate in September, the cabinet secretary did not state that Professor Jay was speaking directly about the amendment. She made a general point, drawing on the publicly stated views of Professor Jay—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
That is absolutely scandalous.
Mr Kerr! Thank you.
I acknowledge that members of Parliament and members of the public will draw different conclusions from the words that we all use. [Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
I know—and I imagine that most members know this, too—that Angela Constance is a sincere minister who would never address Parliament in a way that would in any way mislead Parliament or the public. That is evident to me from the way in which Angela Constance has, over a period of almost two years, openly and with candour, shared with Parliament the very acute challenges that we face in dealing with the rising prison population and the incredibly difficult decisions that we must take on this issue. There is vital work to be done to protect children, and getting on with that work has been what my Government has been doing, just as it has been getting on with a raft of other reforms.
For example, in justice, Angela Constance, in the past 18 months, has successfully steered four crucial acts through the Parliament, including the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, which delivers the biggest reforms for victims of crime in the history of devolution. [Interruption.]
Sorry, First Minister.
There is a lot of noise in the chamber. I would very much like to hear those whom I have called to speak, and I am sure that other parliamentarians would, too.
That act will transform victims’ and witnesses’ experiences of the justice system and ensure that they are treated with compassion. As all those bills were progressed, the justice secretary worked constructively and collegiately with members from across the chamber. She approached all their suggestions to improve the bills with an open mind.
Throughout her term in office, she has worked tirelessly to build a safer Scotland. She has championed the rights of victims and has worked to improve the conditions of those who serve across our criminal justice system. She has made justice more accessible to all, and in particular to those who have suffered some of the most serious crimes. She has never shied away from asking tough questions about our approach to justice, nor has she ever avoided tackling some of the biggest issues that we face.
For those reasons, Angela Constance has my full confidence as justice secretary. She is getting on with the job of making Scotland safer, and I urge members to enable her to continue doing that by rejecting the motion.
14:44
I speak in favour of the motion of no confidence in Angela Constance, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. I do so for one reason above all others: victims and survivors of grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation have lost confidence in this justice secretary.
What has led them to lose confidence is that they feel that the justice secretary and this Government are not on their side. That has been cemented by a clear breach of the ministerial code. Angela Constance misrepresented the views of Professor Alexis Jay on an issue as serious as grooming gangs and organised child sexual exploitation. In doing so, she misled this Parliament.
Angela Constance has had multiple opportunities to correct the record. She has failed to do so. She has received repeated requests from Professor Alexis Jay herself to correct the record. She has failed to do so. This has now stopped being an error and has become a matter of honesty and transparency.
Let us be clear about why that matters. This is not an abstract argument about process or wording; it is about grooming gangs. The justice secretary misrepresented Professor Jay’s views in order to find an excuse not to have an inquiry into grooming gangs. Victims and survivors should be able to rely on their justice system and their Government to tell the truth, to act with integrity and to put them first. On that, the justice secretary has failed.
I want to read the powerful words of Taylor’s mum. Taylor is a brave survivor who has spoken out. Her mum said:
“Taylor is again feeling that she can trust no one, all because of this Government’s inability to be truthful and transparent.”
She said:
“Any MSP who chooses to support Angela Constance in this vote is choosing politics over victims. It is as simple as that.”
She went on to say:
“You cannot say you stand with victims while defending a minister who lied to Parliament, the public and, more importantly, the survivors.”
This has now also become a question of John Swinney’s judgment and of whether victims and the public can have confidence in him. Taylor’s mum said:
“My daughter and me attended Bute house last week. I travelled over 500 miles in a round trip to meet with the First Minister to spend one and a half hours being lied to my face.”
That is utterly damning. John Swinney should have sacked Angela Constance, but he has not. Shamefully, he is not willing to even refer the matter to the independent advisers on the ministerial code. However, it should not be up to him, which is why I have written to the independent advisers on the ministerial code and asked them to investigate.
The justice secretary has lost the confidence of victims. She has lost the confidence of survivors. In my view, she should not have the confidence of this Parliament. She cannot continue in her role. I will end by speaking Taylor’s mum’s words to every MSP in the chamber:
“Can you look yourselves in the mirror, knowing that you are supporting her to remain in position against the will of the victims?”
Yes.
Can you?
Yes.
Wow. Shame on you for shouting that out, Mr Mason. For every single—
Shame on you!
Shame on you too, Mr Brown, for shouting that out.
I have quoted the words of the mother of a victim. For them, this Parliament should support this motion of no confidence.
14:49
I am profoundly sad that we have got to this point. The Scottish Government can and should have handled this issue far better, but I doubt that that would have dissuaded those who have used it for political advantage. In recent weeks, we have seen how detached the debate has become from the issue that is at the heart of this: protecting children from sexual abuse and securing justice for victims and survivors.
I do not pretend to understand the trauma that survivors have gone through, and I doubt that anyone who has not gone through it can truly understand that pain.
However, in this job, I have spent a lot of time with survivors, particularly during the establishment of Redress Scotland. I appreciate how angry many of them are, and that anger is justified. I respect the fact that survivors are not a homogeneous group who speak with one voice—I certainly do not claim to speak for them now—but the pain of having been let down and failed by those who should have protected them, as children, is near universal.
We could have used this afternoon to put questions to the Scottish Government about what additional action it is now taking to deliver justice for those who were failed and to prevent the same thing from happening to more children in the future. It is hard to think of anything more important for a Government to do.
We could have talked about the need to improve the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill, which is due to be passed before the election. We know that a disproportionate number of victims of this scandal are care-experienced children and young people. We have a bill in front of us that has unanimous support, but people’s frustration with it is almost equally unanimous. The bill is intended to fulfil the Promise, but it does not do so. We are already talking about legislation being required in the next parliamentary session to meet that commitment. The Promise Scotland has said that the bill does not fulfil the vision of the independent care review.
Almost four years ago, the Scottish Government committed to reviewing the legislation underpinning the care system, with the aim of making it more understandable, less fragmented and more effective, but that has still not happened, despite the total fragmentation of support being one of the contributing factors in grooming gangs being able to target and abuse children without anyone in a position of authority stopping them.
We could have challenged the justice secretary on the huge problems in the legal aid system and the effect that those are having on survivors seeking justice. Reform of legal aid was promised in this parliamentary session, but it has not yet been delivered. We hear that there might be something before the election, but there are only 10 sitting weeks left. Through the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, the Parliament agreed that independent legal advice should be provided to victims of sexual offences, but that is irrelevant if there are simply not enough solicitors taking on such cases. We know that, in some parts of the country, none are doing so. That is not an easy problem to solve, but, unresolved, it shuts down access to justice for far too many people, including survivors of grooming gangs and other forms of child sexual abuse.
We could have talked about the delayed update to guidance for schools on relationships, sexual health and parenthood education. One of the simplest things that we can do to protect children from sexual abuse is to provide age-appropriate and stage-appropriate education on what that is and, critically, who they can go to if they or someone they know is being abused. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
However, the current guidance on RSHP education is so out of date that it does not even have a section on the importance of consent. The updated draft guidance, which represents a huge improvement, could have been completed and published years ago. We could have used this afternoon to push the Government to at least roll out that guidance early in the new year.
However, we are not doing any of that now. I hope that, at tomorrow’s meeting of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, we will have the opportunity to put such questions to the cabinet secretary and Professor Jay. This afternoon, though, is about politics. I have no time for that, which is why the Greens—[Interruption.]
Thank you, members. We will hear Mr Greer.
The Greens will be voting against the motion.
14:53
The Scottish Liberal Democrats take no pleasure in this debate. We came to the view that today’s vote is regrettable, and it was avoidable. When we deliberated on our response to the motion of no confidence, our discussion was tainted by a collective feeling of disappointment, not least because colleagues expressed much personal good will towards the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. On a personal level, I thank Ms Constance for the constructive attitude that allowed me to successfully progress my victims proposals in a Government bill.
However, in politics, people sometimes make mistakes. To err is, of course, human. It is not for me to decide whether the cabinet secretary purposefully or inadvertently misrepresented the views of a well-respected judicial figure, but the correct course of action would have been to immediately correct the record and apologise to the Parliament, to Professor Jay and to the victims, who should be at the centre of all our attention. There has been ample opportunity for that to happen in recent months. There has been ample opportunity to take ownership of the error. Instead, junior ministers have been put up to shield the cabinet secretary from the flak.
It is three months to the day since the cabinet secretary made the erroneous assertion and the argument was presented to the Parliament—an argument against a Conservative amendment, which we supported, to establish a bespoke inquiry into group-based child exploitation in Scotland.
In response to the First Minister’s comments today, I will say that I re-read the Official Report of the meeting, and there is no ambiguity about what was said or how it could be interpreted—none whatsoever.
In our view, the correct and proper response to that would have been a simple statement of correction in the chamber, which could have put the matter to bed. That is why we believe that the vote today is the inevitable result of a series of events that could have been avoided, and the matter resolved.
We bear the justice secretary no ill will. We do not subscribe to any great sensationalist theory of conspiracy on her part, nor do we see any opportunism in any of this whole sorry saga. Indeed, the substance of the original debate from which all of this stems merits gravitas that it has not always been afforded in this place. When ministers place on the record a view that is based on false representation, the code demands that the record be put straight, with absolute candour, and that is yet to happen.
The Scottish justice system is in upheaval and crisis in equal measure. It is undergoing some of the most substantial changes in centuries, starting with the removal of the not proven verdict. Our prisons are in a state of crisis and a condition that neither rehabilitates prisoners nor keeps people safe, either inside or outside them. Serious violent crime and domestic violence are on the increase in far too many areas in Scotland. Victims and the accused are waiting years for their trials to come to pass. Our police force survives only on the good will of officers and, largely, overtime and, of course, our drugs death crisis continues to be our national shame.
We are in such a critical period. Our justice sector needs to be led from the front and with confidence. The justice secretary in their role must command the confidence not just of the whole Parliament but of every cog in the judicial wheel. Most importantly, they must command the confidence of victims, particularly those who have suffered the most horrendous and unimaginable trauma and abuse, who now tell us directly that that confidence has been lost.
Given that point alone, we will vote in favour of the motion. However, irrespective of the outcome, it is important that we all continue to act and work constructively and sensibly with the minority Government in this Parliament, as it is right to do so. Lessons can and must be learned from this and from the Government’s unacceptable response to the events that have led us to today’s vote.
14:57
We have been down the road of calling for a vote of no confidence in ministers before. In the past, we have called for people in charge to step down because of catastrophic exam results or the misuse of public money. However, today’s vote of confidence is darker and graver. It is about something that is potentially widespread and that affects thousands of young women. It is about vulnerable young girls as young as 13 being gang raped and abused and teenagers being trafficked, drugged, plied with alcohol and waking up naked and bruised on a mattress with no recollection of the night before.
There is a material difference in today’s vote of no confidence. In this case, the Parliament has been misled by the justice secretary, who is responsible for safeguarding victims. Survivors of grooming gangs have been let down unforgivably. It is despicable.
The First Minister did not address the substance of our motion. Instead, he read out the justice secretary’s CV, diverting from the substance. It was 80 per cent deflection, 10 per cent spin and perhaps 10 per cent job reference. Our Scottish Conservatives party leader has set out the timeline that demonstrates with clarity that the justice secretary has misled Parliament—a timeline that has been protracted for survivors and victims and a scale of events that has escalated to such serious levels that survivors have lost trust in the Government.
It has taken months to reveal that Angela Constance clearly misrepresented Professor Alexis Jay’s comments in relation to her view of my colleague Liam Kerr’s amendment, which was voted down by the Scottish National Party and the Greens. The justice secretary continued to deny that she had misrepresented Alexis Jay until correspondence confirmed that the current position was unsatisfactory to her.
Finally, just a few weeks ago, the Scottish Government published email correspondence from Alexis Jay confirming that Angela Constance had misled Parliament. There has still been no correction or apology.
You just could not make this up. Cabinet secretaries have tied themselves in knots trying to defend their justice secretary. Let me remind Ross Greer that we have been standing up for victims of grooming gangs, not slavishly and spinelessly protecting the SNP Government. A plethora of cabinet secretaries have been rolled out to shut down the truth.
Over the course of a few weeks, Natalie Don-Innes has responded to an urgent question from Meghan Gallacher while the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs sat in the chamber; Meghan Gallacher raised the subject of an inquiry through a business motion but, again, there no action; Tess White, Pam Gosal, Sharon Dowey and Douglas Ross called for an inquiry in the violence against women and girls debate led by Shirley-Anne Somerville and Kaukab Stewart but, once again, there was no action; there was a Labour debate on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse, led for the SNP by Jenny Gilruth and Angela Constance, but once again there was no action; and there was a point of order and an urgent question from my colleague Douglas Ross but, again, there was no action. On top of that, there was an opportunity for John Swinney to respond to his justice secretary’s lying in Parliament at two separate First Minister’s question times in answering questions from my colleague Russell Findlay. There have been no answers, however—just stonewalling. That is no way to treat victims of horrific crimes.
As Taylor’s mum said,
“Where is the humanity for these young people who have to keep being re-traumatised time and time again every time they have to speak out in the hope that you will all do the right thing. The survivors demand honesty and transparency.”
John Swinney could have called an immediate inquiry. It is unclear why the First Minister has not called an immediate investigation or indeed why he has instructed his Cabinet to defend Angela Constance misleading Parliament. As my colleague Russell Findlay said, John Swinney met Taylor and her mother a week ago, on 9 December. Taylor and her mum told the First Minister about the destruction and loss of vital evidence and records held by the Government, the police, education, the national health service and local authorities.
Victims’ voices are clear: they do not want to be fobbed off. Transparency and honesty matter. It is not that the SNP is shy of inquiries, but this one really matters—this situation matters. It appears that the SNP’s strategy has been to get the issue out of the road before Christmas and hope that it goes away, and that people will have forgotten about SNP members’ disgraceful behaviour from the moment that they voted down Liam Kerr’s amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill and about the behaviour of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, who has let down victims.
This stinks. This is on a different scale. Labour and the Liberal Democrats agree: Angela Constance must go, for the sake of survivors and thousands of others whose trust and confidence have been undermined by a cover-up.
That concludes the debate on the motion of no confidence and we move to the question.
The question is, that motion S6M-20135, in the name of Russell Findlay, on a motion of no confidence, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
We will suspend the meeting to allow members to access the digital voting system.
15:03 Meeting suspended.
We come to the vote on motion S6M-20135, in the name of Russell Findlay. Members should cast their votes now.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted no.
Thank you, Mr Brown. We will ensure that that is recorded.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer]
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor]
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Abstentions
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
The result of the division on motion S6M-20135, in the name of Russell Findlay, on a motion of no confidence, is: For 57, Against 67, Abstentions 1.
Motion disagreed to.
That concludes this item of business, and there will be a short suspension before we move to the next item.
15:10 Meeting suspended.Previous
Topical Question Time