The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2; the marshalled list; and the groupings.
The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group.
Section 1—Restriction on automatic early release
We will start—unexpectedly—with group 1. Amendment 1, in the name of Elaine Murray, is the only amendment in the group.
This amendment differs from the one that I lodged at stage 2, which proposed that long-term offenders should be required to serve one eighth of their sentence under supervision in the community, rather than the six months that is proposed by the Government irrespective of the length of their sentence or the severity of the crime. The Government rejected that amendment, arguing that it did not believe that an offender who had spent twice as long as another in prison should also be supervised in the community for twice as long.
At the end of May, the Justice Committee heard evidence from two expert academics, Professor Fergus McNeill and Professor Cyrus Tata, who were critical of the Government’s blanket six-month period of supervision. Professor McNeill advised that
“if you have spent 10 years in prison, six months is a very short period, not least because of the accumulated effects of the institutionalisation that a long sentence brings”,
and he said that
“a proportional system makes more sense”.
Professor Tata stated:
“Without doubt, it would be sensible to define the period as a percentage of the sentence”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 27 May 2015; c 4-5.]
A briefing signed by several organisations and individuals came out only on Saturday. It says:
“Proponents of the bill have failed to explain how moving from a compulsory supervision period that is proportionate to the length of the original sentence to a blanket six-month period for all long-term prisoners, regardless of sentence length, better serves the interests of public safety.”
To an extent, my stage 3 amendment is a compromise but it has some advantages. It would enable the court to decide at the time of sentencing whether the six months supervision in the community would be sufficient or whether a longer supervisory sentence would be more appropriate if, by the end of the custodial part of the sentence, the Parole Board for Scotland had deemed the offender not to be suitable for early release on parole. For example, the court could take into account the nature of the offence, the length of the custodial sentence and the offender’s previous offending history when determining whether the supervisory sentence should be longer than six months.
The maximum length of supervisory sentence would be one eighth of the total custodial sentence. For a sentence of four years, that would be six months but, for a longer sentence, the court would have the opportunity to impose a longer supervisory sentence. That would address the concerns that were expressed at stage 2, when I proposed a supervisory sentence of one eighth of the total sentence. It would allow a proportional approach when the court deemed it appropriate and would have the added advantage that the custodial and supervisory parts of the sentence would have to be defined at the time of sentencing, which would improve clarity for victims, the community and the offender.
Amendment 1 is intended to be a helpful and constructive amendment. It will improve the bill and I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is minded to accept it.
I move amendment 1.
I accept that Elaine Murray’s amendment is slightly different to her stage 2 amendment but, when she proposed 12.5 per cent at stage 2, she suggested that it was not really evidence based.
We are familiar with the evidence of Colin McConnell from the Scottish Prison Service on the importance of the first six to 12 weeks. That period of three months was also supported by Sacro. I accept that there is an absence of empirical evidence about some such matters, but I remind Elaine Murray about Professor McNeill’s comments on 24 February, when he said:
“I am not aware of any credible evidence that lengthening sentences in and of itself guarantees the more effective risk management that the bill seems to be trying to bring about. I am not able to put it more forcefully than that, because for obvious reasons of justice it is very difficult to do the kind of research that would experimentally test different release arrangements. We do not really get to do that kind of experiment in criminology, for very good reasons.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 24 February 2015; c 51-52.]
There we have it. There is an absence of evidence, but I am convinced that six months gets the right balance. If we give power to the court as the amendment proposes, we will take away some of the increased power to decide when someone is fit for release that the Parole Board will get from the bill. If we are concerned about future supervision at the time of sentencing, I expect courts to make better use of extended sentences.
For all those reasons, I oppose the amendment.
One of the key issues debated through the scrutiny of the bill has been the supervision of long-term prisoners when they leave custody.
As part of its stage 1 report, the Justice Committee recommended that the potential for some prisoners to leave custody without supervision should be addressed. The Scottish Government listened to those concerns and introduced into the bill at stage 2 mandatory minimum licence condition supervision of at least six months for every long-term prisoner who leaves custody.
The Justice Committee warmly welcomed the principle of ensuring supervision at the end of a sentence, but there was some debate about what the minimum length of supervision should be. Elaine Murray’s amendment 1 would retain six months as the minimum period of supervision but give new discretion to the court to decide at the point of sentencing to increase that minimum supervision to anything up to 12.5 per cent of a prisoner’s sentence.
It might be helpful if I explain the effect of amendment 1 through an example. Under the bill, a person who receives a 12-year sentence with no extended sentence will be released if they are still in custody after 11 years and six months. Under amendment 1, the court would be able to decide at the point of sentencing to order their release from any point after 10 years and six months into the sentence.
15:00The Scottish Government does not support amendment 1, for two reasons. First, we consider that the length of the mandatory supervision period should be six months. MSPs will be aware that a considerable amount of work goes on inside prisons to plan for the release of long-term prisoners. That includes a comprehensive home background report being prepared for each long-term prisoner, with criminal justice social work being directly involved inside the prison to consider the long-term prisoner’s needs as they become eligible for consideration for release.
That work seeks to ensure that the prisoner is as ready as they can be for release, through consideration of issues such as housing, welfare and work needs, given that those are key issues to address in order to achieve a successful reintegration into the community.
Keeping that in mind, we think that the minimum period of supervision that is necessary for a prisoner who has served close to four years, as compared with a prisoner leaving after, say, eight years in custody, is likely to be similar, given that both sentences are long periods of time to be incarcerated and that additional preparatory work is done while the individual is in prison.
The committee’s stage 1 evidence highlighted a number of different issues, in particular that the initial six to 12 weeks following release are generally the most critical for individual prisoners once released. It is during those first weeks and months after leaving custody that prisoners have to re-establish themselves into the community. That is when challenges around housing and getting a job are most acute. The Scottish Government considers that a period of six months strikes the appropriate balance.
In addition to considering it a matter of principle that six months is an appropriate period of mandatory supervision, we think that such a role being placed on the court as has been suggested would usurp the role of the Parole Board. It is important to stress that the Parole Board is there to assess risk during a prisoner’s sentence so as to decide whether early release is appropriate. The Parole Board can of course consider how the prisoner has been rehabilitated during their sentence, which is not something that the court can do at the point of sentencing.
The system will continue to operate so that the Parole Board will assess whether supervised early release is appropriate for any given long-term prisoner, from the halfway point of their sentence onward. In our view, amendment 1 would undermine the role of our Parole Board.
Therefore, we do not support amendment 1, and we ask members not to vote in favour of it.
I will answer some of the points that have been made. Roddy Campbell says that the approach is not evidence based. In fact, there is no empirical evidence for the blanket six-month period. Indeed, several witnesses who came to the committee at stage 1 stated that six months of supervision is inadequate and is likely to jeopardise public safety, that the reintegration of long-term high-risk offenders takes time, and that there is an increased potential with a blanket six-month period for challenges under the European convention on human rights.
On the point of a prisoner being released after 10 years and six months, it would be for the court to decide at the time of sentencing on the total sentence that would be served. If the court considered that, if the person was not reintegrated or if they still presented a great deal of risk at the end of their sentence, the sentence should be 11 years and six months in prison, the court could still impose 11 years and six months in prison plus a supervisory sentence at the end of that. The total sentence means both parts of the sentence—the two of them add up.
The Parole Board would still have a role in deciding whether the offender was released at 50 per cent of the total sentence. I do not understand the argument that my proposal undermines the role of the Parole Board, which would still decide whether somebody was released early—it would have exactly the same role as it has at the moment, and it would have to assess the risk of the offender being released before the end of their custodial sentence.
I therefore wish to press my amendment.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. I suspend the meeting for five minutes.
15:04 Meeting suspended.
We move to the division on amendment 1.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
Abstentions
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 30, Against 69, Abstentions 14.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Section 3—Commencement
Amendment 2, in the name of Margaret Mitchell, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 2 seeks to delay the commencement of section 1 until the day after the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill receives royal assent. I stress that agreeing to amendment 2 would not mean delaying the commencement of section 2 of the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill.
I raised the issue at stage 2 when I lodged a probing amendment to highlight issues that were worthy of further debate and scrutiny. I had hoped that the cabinet secretary would take cognisance of and address stakeholder concerns about the proposals and acknowledge the advantages of postponing the commencement of section 1.
There is good reason for such a postponement. That was confirmed by the analysis published as recently as yesterday by key stakeholders, including those who work at the cutting edge of the criminal justice system such as Apex Scotland, Circle Scotland, Positive Prison? Positive Futures, criminal justice social workers and learned academics, not to mention equality groups such as women for independence.
The issues of concern include inadequate consultation and evidence gathering; the replacement of automatic release at the two-thirds point of the sentence by an arbitrary period of six months; and the fact that, as a consequence of the proposals, there is increased potential for European convention on human rights challenges. The influential stakeholders conclude that the bill
“will not end automatic early release, it will not reduce reoffending and it will not improve public safety in the longer term; indeed it is likely to jeopardise both public safety and reintegration”.
In those circumstances, surely the only reasonable course of action would be to postpone the commencement of section 1 of the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill to allow the full debate and detailed scrutiny that the crucially important issue of automatic early release merits. That would allow the criminal justice system to be looked at in the round, and discussion and debate to take place on short-term sentencing, early release and associated recidivism rates. [Interruption.]
Excuse me. Could members just calm down a little and allow Margaret Mitchell to be heard?
That is why I again propose delaying the commencement of section 1 until the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill receives royal assent.
At stage 2, the cabinet secretary indicated that
“there are no provisions in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill relating to early release”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 2 June 2015; c 16.]
However, I have received assurances from the head of the legislation and delegated powers team that there would indeed be scope to address the issue in the legislation later this year.
Automatic early release is confusing for the public and distressing for victims of crimes, and we can all agree that it is important to get ending it absolutely right. I urge members to vote to delay the commencement of section 1 to ensure the best possible outcome, following scrutiny of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.
I move amendment 2.
15:15
Margaret Mitchell lodged an amendment in the same terms at stage 2 and, as I said then, I am not quite certain what it is in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that has to receive royal assent before the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill can proceed.
Although the provisions in the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill were originally to be introduced in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, the other provisions in the latter bill would not particularly affect those in the former. In addition, I do not see why the provisions in section 1 of the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill should have to come into force the very next day after the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill receives royal assent.
I remind members that, in 2007, we passed the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill, which first introduced custodial and supervisory sentencing. The Law Society of Scotland and other stakeholders are wrong in saying that such an approach has never been taken before, because it was taken eight years ago. The provisions in that bill have never come into force because the McLeish commission said that we would have to get the prisoner population down before it would be possible to implement them.
I ask the cabinet secretary for an assurance that the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill, if it is passed, will not be implemented until all the necessary community interventions and services are in place, including the extension of multi-agency public protection arrangements for violent offenders, which are currently under discussion.
We cannot support amendment 2. If Margaret Mitchell had specified the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill rather than the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, I might have had a bit more sympathy with the intention behind her amendment.
I have listened carefully to Margaret Mitchell, as I did when she lodged an amendment in the same terms at stage 2, but I confess that I am still somewhat confused about her views on the matter and why she thinks that it is important to delay the commencement of the reforms in the bill—given that they have been considered by Parliament at stages 1 and 2 and now at stage 3—pending the Parliament passing the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill and the granting of royal assent to that piece of legislation. As Margaret Mitchell acknowledged and Elaine Murray emphasised, I indicated at stage 2 that
“there are no provisions in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill relating to early release”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 2 June 2015; c 16.]
I can see no good reason to delay the implementation of the provisions in the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill, in the manner that would result if amendment 2 was agreed to.
It is entirely possible that amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill will be considered by the Justice Committee at stage 2. However, amending the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill to tie its provisions to future legislation—we do not know whether the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill will even contain any such provisions, because the Government does not intend to lodge amendments to that bill in this area—would to a large extent pre-empt Parliament’s consideration of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. That is not an appropriate way for us to take forward legislation.
I listened carefully to what Margaret Mitchell said in justifying her amendment at stage 2, and I have listened to her again today at stage 3. I do not believe that there is any good justification for delaying the important reforms in the Prisoners (Control of Release) Scotland Bill, which is concerned with public safety, once it receives royal assent. I do not see why we should tie the provisions in this bill to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.
On that basis, we oppose amendment 2, and I ask Parliament to reject it.
To answer Elaine Murray’s point, early release will be discussed in the context of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. My amendment would allow us time for proper scrutiny and debate, which we simply have not had.
As the cabinet secretary said, we have been through stage 1. However, the bill was not fit for purpose and had to be changed beyond recognition at stage 2, so we cannot take much comfort from that process.
As I say, at stage 2, we changed the bill from ending automatic early release to merely amending the rules. That does not fill me with confidence that we have gone through a process that suggests that the legislation before us is good legislation that has been properly scrutinised and debated.
Amendment 2 is reasonable. By delaying the commencement of section 1, it would ensure that the best possible outcome was achieved following scrutiny of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. At the very least, that would help to confirm that the period of mandatory supervised release in the community is sufficient—that it is properly thought through and able to address the practicalities of housing, benefits and employment; adequately resourced to ensure that the essential criminal justice social work is in place; and supported by a level of surveillance using all the modem technology that is available, in accordance with the assessment of risk.
It is for those reasons that I press amendment 2.
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 97, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments.