Housing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
Resumed debate.
We return to consideration of amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill. We have reached group 16.
Section 155A—Other amendments of Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004
Group 16 is on amendments to part 8—register of landlords—of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. Amendment 58, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 59, 61 to 63, 8 and 9.
The amendments in the group seek to refine the private landlord registration system to make it more effective and, in particular, to make a link between registration and the reletting offence in the repairing standard provisions in the bill.
Amendment 58 responds to an amendment made by Patrick Harvie at stage 2. It will adjust the reference to unlawful discrimination, being one of the matters to which the local authority will have regard when it is carrying out the fit-and-proper-person test for private landlord registration under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, by removing references in that act to specific forms of discrimination, so that any unlawful discrimination is relevant material that should be considered when applying the test. Therefore, the provision will remain current and effective despite changes in the law on discrimination.
Amendment 59 will require the local authority to include in the register of private landlords the fact that a house is subject to a repairing standard enforcement order and to remove that reference when the order is revoked or the necessary work has been done and a certificate of completion has been granted. In the time between the making of the order and its revocation or the granting of a completion certificate, the landlord will commit an offence by reletting the house unless the private rented housing committee had consented to the let. The purpose of the amendment is to allow a prospective tenant to find out that that is the case. Amendment 61 will ensure that that information is openly available to any member of the public who inspects the register.
Amendment 8 will ensure that a local authority is informed when a private rented housing committee consents to a landlord reletting a house while it is subject to a repairing standard enforcement order. That will ensure that the entry in the register that amendment 59 will require will be removed. Amendment 9 will make a consequential adjustment, as the giving of consent is not subject to appeal.
Amendments 62 and 63 will make detailed technical corrections.
I move amendment 58.
I am pleased that the Executive has kept the commitment that the minister gave at stage 2 by lodging an amendment. Amendment 58 will achieve my objective more effectively than my stage 2 amendment would have done, and it avoids any risk that the legislation will go out of date if equalities legislation changes, as expected.
If the minister has a moment when she sums up, will she explain why existing and new forms of unlawful discrimination should count differently for a commercial letting agent or private landlord than for a religious organisation, for example, which will be exempt from the legislation and will not have to meet the fit-and-proper-person test? If a religious organisation that is a landlord discriminates on the ground of sexual orientation, age, gender or whatever, should not it, too, have to face consequences?
I would be unhappy about responding directly to Patrick Harvie's specific question in case I misled him. We are committed to equal opportunities and to ending discrimination. I will attempt to pursue the point that Patrick Harvie has made before I sum up.
Amendment 58 agreed to.
Amendments 59 and 61 to 63 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Group 17 is on the registration of landlords and persons deemed to be acting for an owner. Amendment 84, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 84 is another amendment that will help to make the private landlord registration system more effective by amending a specific aspect of its operation. The amendment deals with the fit-and-proper-person test, where there are one or more intermediate landlords between the owner and the occupier. Its effect will be that, of the various people who may be in a leasing chain, only the owner and the person who is the immediate landlord of the occupier will be subject to the fit-and-proper-person test: the owner because he or she has ultimate control over and responsibility for the property; and the immediate landlord because he or she is the person delivering the service to the tenant. Where the immediate landlord uses an agent, the agent will also be subject to the fit-and-proper-person test in the usual way.
I move amendment 84.
Amendment 84 agreed to.
Before section 155B
Group 18 is on registered social landlords and the delegation of functions. Amendment 64, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 64 will introduce a new section that will give ministers a power, in defined circumstances, to direct certain registered social landlords to authorise other registered social landlords to exercise their housing management functions. As I am sure members will be aware, the amendment is intended to remove potential legal obstacles facing Glasgow Housing Association. A commitment was made to tenants in Glasgow at the time of the transfer vote to devolve control of housing to local communities as quickly as possible. The GHA feared the impact that European Union procurement laws might have on renewing the interim management contracts that it has with local housing organisations. The bill gives us the chance to nail that issue on the head and to ensure that local control is maintained.
Amendment 64 will enable ministers to ensure, through use of a power of direction, that there can be no doubt that the LHOs have an exclusive right to carry out housing management functions locally. The power of direction is a limited one. It will apply only where there has been a whole-stock transfer from a local authority, and ministers will need to be satisfied that the direction is appropriate to meet the spirit of the proposals that were put to tenants before the stock transfer. Moreover, use of the power is time limited to five years from commencement of the provision. The amendment will not affect any stock transfers that are currently going through, including Edinburgh's.
Our commitment to second-stage transfer and to devolving power to local communities remains absolute. It is right and sensible to take these powers now to protect the guarantees that we gave to tenants, rather than to leave it to chance. As a result of amendment 64, the GHA and the local housing organisations in Glasgow will be able to concentrate on working towards delivering second-stage transfers.
I move amendment 64.
The SNP will support amendment 64, as it will tighten any legal loophole—real or perceived—that is being used to stop the devolving of management agreements to local housing organisations in Glasgow by Glenrothes housing association—that is a Freudian slip; I mean Glasgow Housing Association, but the issue is the same.
I welcome the minister's firm statement, but I also seek a number of assurances from the minister on the role of the GHA, the future functions of the local housing organisations and the timetable for second-stage transfer.
Amendment 64 is permissive—it will allow the minister to take action but will not require him to do so. Does the Executive intend to introduce or to impose an arrangement, or will the minister be content to allow the GHA and the local housing organisations to negotiate the next steps? Will any new agreement between the GHA and the local housing organisations be binding on all parties? Some interim arrangements expire in December and the bill will not receive royal assent until January. What action does the minister expect the GHA to take in the meantime? The GHA has a meeting tomorrow. Does the minister expect the GHA to rescind the decision of 28 October, which charged staff with making preparations for direct management? Is he considering whether Communities Scotland should take responsibility for the second-stage transfers, given the Executive's commitment that progress must be made and local communities' genuine frustration at the failure of the second-stage transfer process to date? The GHA wanted the new, post-December agreements to limit the LHO committees to dealing with consultation matters. Does the minister agree that the new arrangements should make the local housing organisations the responsible bodies?
Like Tricia Marwick, I welcome amendment 64, provided that it will stop the debacle that the GHA has suffered of late. I cannot help feeling that if the Executive had accepted the SNP amendment to the bill that became the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 that would have enshrined in legislation a right to community ownership, we would not be in the position that we are in now. I am concerned that the Executive has never been able to define what it means by community ownership. I have asked it that question repeatedly, but I have never had a response that has given any kind of answer.
Can the minister guarantee that the second-stage transfer in Glasgow will go ahead for all tenants and will not just be a token gesture that involves some people in specific areas? Will all tenants of Glasgow Housing Association now have the right to proceed to second-stage transfer? If necessary, will resources follow the bill to allow that to happen?
The minister mentioned the stock transfer in Edinburgh but, as far as I am aware, amendment 64 makes no reference to second-stage transfers. Will the right to proceed to second-stage transfer be given to all tenants who are the subject of large-scale voluntary transfers? Will they be able to take control of their own housing destiny and to shape their areas and communities in the way they want to? Surely that is the spirit of all the talk that there has been.
Like other members, I have some questions that I would like the minister to answer. First, I want him to give more information than he gave in his initial comments about how amendment 64 will resolve the issue around European procurement law. I understand that the basis of the argument on that is to do with the special circumstances that are associated with registered social landlords, but more detail would be helpful.
Secondly, I invite the minister to say something about how the power of intervention that he seeks would be used and about the relationships between ministers and the trustees of the GHA. Thirdly, will the housing management functions to which amendment 64 refers cover investment? I do not think that that is entirely clear. Fourthly, will the Government's overall approach to efficiency, whereby different procurement and delivery mechanisms—especially those that relate to back-office functions, such as finance—are being brought together, be applied to the second-stage transfer and the transfer arrangements that affect LHOs? Those all seem to be relevant questions.
Once again, the Executive has lodged a substantial 11th hour amendment. The fact that the amendment was not produced at stage 2 means that the committee has not had time to take evidence on it or to consider it thoroughly. That is simply not good enough.
Why does amendment 64 take the form that it does and what is its purpose? It is my understanding that amendment 64 is required to allow the devolution of the Glasgow stock transfer from the GHA to the 63 local housing organisations. Ministers have known about the thorny issue of a breach of European competition law since the middle of last year, so why is amendment 64 required? Frankly, I believe that in their rush to push through the Glasgow housing stock transfer against tenant resistance, ministers made a mess of the procedures for the transfer. Ministers were able to sell the transfer to tenants who agreed by a slim majority on the basis that there would be a second stock transfer—a measure with which we agree.
It is a matter of fact that the relationship between the GHA and the LHOs is contractual. I have it on sound legal opinion that they are separate legal entities and I will be pleased to hear what the minister's legal advice is in that regard. The problem with the current process is that it falls foul of European competition law, thereby imperilling the devolving of the stock transfer to the LHOs.
Several issues arise. Who are the bad guys in all of this? Is it the GHA or is the smoking gun to be found elsewhere? Amendment 64 is an endeavour by ministers to find a remedy to a legal mischief of their making. It allows them to lay the blame for the halting process at the feet of the GHA when, both in terms of the legislation and the funding that is required, it lies at their feet.
Will the remedy work? The minister must be in a position today to tell the chamber that his clear legal advice is that amendment 64 is competent and, further, that once it is agreed to—SNP members will support it, because we want the LHOs to succeed—the GHA will be able to conduct its affairs legally. The minister must put that on the record. We require a clear statement on the matter. The point is a fundamental one.
Will the minister explain the meaning of proposed new section 68A(1)(c) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, which states:
"RSL 1 is to manage its houses in a manner which is consistent with the spirit of any notice served on tenants".
What on earth does
"the spirit of any notice"
mean? What would it mean in a court?
Instead of devolving power down to local organisations, proposed new section 68A(2) will give ministers the power to interfere with RSL 1 and, indeed, RSL 2. It will allow ministers to put the work elsewhere. The provision is top heavy; it does not come from the grass roots up. I would like explanations on all those points.
Well, there are certainly several points to answer. I will begin with the points that Christine Grahame raised. She said that we had made a mess of the procedures in the months gone by. All I can say in response is that she made a mess of explaining it.
As I have been saying for several weeks, it is absolutely clear that second-stage transfer is quite different from the particular procurement issue that has arisen. I assure Christine Grahame that we are clear that amendment 64 is perfectly compatible with European law; so, too, will be any direction that we make under the power.
In response to Des McNulty, I will explain in more detail how the provisions will work. Amendment 64 does not involve legislating to alter procurement law—obviously, we cannot do that. However, the procurement regulations do not apply where there is an exclusive right for one contracting entity to provide services. Amendment 64 will create a power that will enable ministers, through a direction to the GHA, to remove any scope for doubt that the LHOs have such an exclusive right to carry out the functions concerned. The provision will ensure that the interim management arrangements take advantage of the existing exemption in European Union procurement law.
Tricia Marwick asked several questions about the gap between 14 December and the enactment of the bill. Given that the act will come into force very early in 2006, we are in discussion with the GHA on how to manage the short period of time between 14 December and the time at which the direction is made.
The GHA has a meeting tomorrow. Does the minister expect, or will he direct, the GHA to rescind the decision that was made on 28 October that charged staff with making preparations for direct management? That is the key question. If we expect the bill to become law in early January, we must ensure that provision is made to replace the interim arrangements that expire in December. The minister has a duty both to the GHA and to the local housing organisations in Glasgow to make the position clear. The minister must say what he expects the GHA to do tomorrow.
We expect that decision to be rescinded tomorrow. We are working actively with the GHA all the time to ensure that that will be possible. The direction will be binding and will make it absolutely clear what is required for future arrangements. We will work with all parties to define the way forward.
Tricia Marwick asked about retaining the powers in the new arrangements. The substance of what is in the interim management agreements will be retained because of amendment 64.
Linda Fabiani raised several points. I repeat what I have said consistently over the past few weeks: we are absolutely committed to second-stage transfer, but it should be a bottom-up process that goes at the pace of the tenants. She complained about resources, but I do not think that they are complaining in Glasgow, with £716 million from the Executive coming on top of £1 billion of debt write-off. She also asked about second-stage transfers elsewhere, but we follow a tenant-led process in that regard. As an Edinburgh MSP, I am not aware of demands from tenants in Edinburgh for second-stage transfers. If there were such demands, no doubt we would consider them seriously. There were demands in Glasgow where, of course, the number of council houses is four times that in Edinburgh.
It is obvious that Edinburgh does not have the same tradition of community ownership as Glasgow. Did anyone take the time to explain to the tenants of Edinburgh what the options were in relation to true community ownership before it was decided what would go in the ballot proposal?
As I have explained, strong devolved arrangements are part of what is proposed in Edinburgh, which is what tenants there wish.
Des McNulty asked about efficiency. That is very much at the heart of our policies, as is tenant control of the management of Glasgow housing. I do not believe that those two fundamental principles are in conflict. There is already a good tradition of housing associations working together and sharing services. Obviously, the precise number of second-stage transfer vehicles will be discussed in the coming period. We will do all that we can to ensure that second-stage transfer takes place as soon as possible.
Clearly, the procurement issue is a serious distraction from that, and it has caused great concern to tenants in Glasgow, but I do not detect the kind of reaction from the tenants of Glasgow that we saw a moment ago from Christine Grahame. They have welcomed amendment 64. Indeed, when we announced it last Friday, the GHA welcomed it as well.
I was simply asking whether amendment 64 will legally repeal the current situation in which, as I understand it, the relationship between the GHA and the local housing organisations is contractual. That is why the minister is in this legal quagmire. I take his assurance that tomorrow, or the day after the bill is enacted, the GHA will be able to conduct its affairs legally and not breach European law. That is all I ask.
When the bill is enacted, we will be able to give a direction that will place that position beyond doubt.
Christine Grahame said that the bill's wording is top-heavy. If she has a better way of solving the particular difficulty that has arisen, I would be delighted to hear it. I do not hear the tenants of Glasgow complaining to us that what we are doing is top-heavy. They have welcomed it hitherto, and if we vote to pass the bill this afternoon, they will welcome it even more later today.
Amendment 64 agreed to.
Group 19 is on registered social landlords and permissible purposes. Amendment 65, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.
I am sure that many members agree that a number of registered social landlords are well placed to play a valuable role beyond their housing role in communities. That wider role can benefit communities in a number of ways: it can help to create jobs and provide training; it can improve people's health or the environment in which they live; or it can provide first-class community facilities in some of our most disadvantaged areas. I am keen that we facilitate and encourage RSLs to make the most of their assets—financial and human—so that they can maximise their positive impact in communities.
I do not want to limit unduly the kinds of activities in which RSLs may get involved, but that broad encouragement is balanced by the keen interest that Communities Scotland, as regulator, maintains in the relationship between an organisation's wider role and its role as a landlord. Communities Scotland's policy on RSLs' wider role clearly states that they must have the support of their residents before getting involved in wider work. Amendment 65 will provide a sound legal foundation on which to facilitate the broad objective of ensuring that RSLs play as full a part as possible in improving the communities in which they operate.
I move amendment 65.
Amendment 65 agreed to.
Group 20 is on home energy efficiency. Amendment 85, in the name of Karen Whitefield, is grouped with amendments 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 86. I will put the question on the amendments to amendment 1 before I put the question on amendment 1 itself. I will remind members of that when we come to the vote.
Amendment 85 offers a workable and comprehensive approach to encouraging improvements in energy efficiency. I recognise that the domestic sector has a vital role in increasing energy efficiency, as it consumes so much energy. I understand why Patrick Harvie, and other members to whom I have spoken, are eager to include provisions on energy efficiency in the bill.
If agreed, amendment 85 will ensure that the Executive acts on its intentions in relation to domestic energy efficiency. It will mean either that the comprehensive energy efficiency strategy that the Executive is developing will contain an explicit strategy on domestic accommodation, or that a separate strategy will be produced. Amendment 85 ensures that any strategy will be kept under review and will require reports on its implementation.
Amendment 85 also allows ministers to include certain measures in the strategy and to say what they expect those measures to achieve by way of reductions in carbon emissions. That is a sound and practical approach, which, because it is linked to measures in the strategy, will ensure that the Executive considers how it will manage those measures and what levers it can pull to require or encourage their use. My proposed approach will also give us targets against which to assess the Executive's performance in implementing its strategy.
Not surprisingly, I believe that my amendment offers the most constructive way of achieving what we want. It addresses the strongly—and rightly—held views of the various energy efficiency groups in Scotland.
I move amendment 85.
Karen Whitefield has laid out the position quite accurately. Amendment 85 calls for a strategy, something to which the Executive is already committed. Amendment 1, in my name, would insert into the bill statutory targets for improvements in energy efficiency. Statutory targets are the key point that we should be addressing.
The main difference between amendment 1 and the amendment that the Communities Committee rejected at stage 2 is that the stage 2 amendment contained a secondary target for further improvements on home energy efficiency by 2020. I have removed that, so I am giving the Parliament the opportunity to vote today on the single target on its own.
Statutory targets are the meat of the issue. Other legislatures in Europe, including Westminster, have acknowledged the need to include statutory targets in legislation on this subject to ensure that there is a deadline for Government to live up to. To agree an amendment without statutory targets would fall short of a half-measure.
On Frances Curran's amendments to my amendment, I am honestly not sure how necessary amendments 1C and 1D are, but they seem to add, rather than detract, so I would be happy for them to go through. The Communities Committee has already rejected the secondary target that I proposed, and that is unlikely to change today. I am keen that we have the opportunity to vote on the first target alone. I therefore do not intend to support Frances Curran's amendments 1A and 1B.
I know that the Conservative group is particularly concerned about the cost of the measures that we propose. There will of course be a short-term cost to society in becoming more energy efficient. The savings come later. In these times, when all the talk is of an energy gap and fans of nuclear power, including the Conservatives, are calling for new build, the task of preparing our society for the energy problems that we will face in the coming century will have a cost. We can choose to pay the immense financial, social and environmental cost of the nuclear option, or of runaway climate change, or we can choose as a society to pay the lower cost in all three senses of preparing ourselves for the dramatic reduction in the use of energy that will be required of us.
For generations we have been living with the delusion that energy is a cheap commodity and building the domestic equivalent of gas-guzzling four-by-fours. To focus only on the need to keep the lights burning is as short-sighted as the road fuel lobby's demand for an absolute right to keep putting cheap petrol in its tanks.
The transition that will be forced on our society one way or the other can be sudden, dramatic and traumatic or we can rouse ourselves from the fantasy of cheap energy and start laying the foundations of a society that can offer a high quality of life to all without living beyond our ecological means.
I would describe that as a Green society, but, whatever political interpretation one offers, we must all recognise the challenge that lies before us. Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs at Westminster have recognised that challenge by supporting similar measures to include statutory targets in their legislation.
I welcomed the SNP's support at stage 2 and I hope that it will support amendment 1 today. I sincerely hope also that members of other parties will see that firm, clear statutory targets are a step in not just the right direction, but the only direction that we will be able to take. If we do not take that step now, when will we take it?
The reason for amendments 1A to 1D is that every time we discuss energy in the Parliament—we did so two weeks ago—ministers get to their feet and wax lyrical about the energy efficiency savings that they are making and the investment that is going into energy efficiency in housing. The issue is crucial. There is a report that says that a child living in a damp house for a year experiences the same lung damage that they would get from smoking 20 cigarettes a day. Some 46,000 children in this country live in fuel poverty.
If the Executive is so committed to efficiency, what is the problem with statutory targets? The Executive is wriggling to try to get off the hook of statutory targets. Karen Whitefield's amendment 85 will allow it to do so, so I imagine that the Executive will support it. Look how pathetic the amendment is. It would mean that the Executive had a strategy that should be reviewed "from time to time" and it could "revise it". It could be revised up as well as down, because there are no targets. The amendment would provide that
"The Scottish Ministers must publish the strategy and any revisions to it in such manner as they think fit."
That is not exactly binding the Executive to anything on energy efficiency. The 20 per cent target is a Department of Trade and Industry target.
There has to be consultation with residents and tenants organisations on any strategy that is drawn up. Gypsy Travellers must be involved in that, given the cost of fuel and the need for warm homes in their community—their accommodation counts too. I ask members to support my amendments.
We have heard strong arguments, which are sincerely felt, for Patrick Harvie's amendment 1 and for Karen Whitefield's approach. Frances Curran's view is that we should go further than Patrick Harvie proposes. There has not been a hint of disagreement with the underlying proposition that we must do all we can to tackle global warming by reducing carbon emissions. The Executive supports that sentiment entirely. The question is how best to proceed.
As Karen Whitefield has suggested, energy efficiency is a major policy concern for the Executive. We think that it is vital that the issue is addressed in a comprehensive way. We are seeking to intervene in the vastly complex system that is the nation's economy in order to find ways that energy—the lifeblood of that system—can be used more efficiently. In a modern democracy, our powers to affect the decisions of individuals in all walks of life at home and at work are properly limited, so we will have to use ingenuity and imagination as well as our ability to legislate.
We need to influence people, and to do that we need to send out credible messages that are meaningful and relevant to people's everyday lives. That is what we are seeking to do as we develop our energy efficiency strategy, to show everyone in Scotland that there are practical, meaningful things that we can all do to improve energy efficiency. We will give the greatest emphasis to those measures that can make the biggest impact on the level of emissions.
Where do targets fit in? On 30 June, the First Minister announced a commitment to establish Scottish climate change targets in devolved areas and we are developing a framework for those through the review of the Scottish climate change programme. Taking its lead from the Scottish climate change programme, the comprehensive energy efficiency strategy will set out its specific contribution in that area. Within that overall context we think that the component parts of the strategy should be driven by specific measures encouraging tangible, concrete action.
Our warm deal and central heating programmes are prime examples of how that approach can work. Highly practical and effective action is tackling fuel poverty and energy efficiency simultaneously. The warm deal has insulated 218,000 homes and, in the private rented sector, has reduced tenants' annual fuel bills by an average of £99. The central heating programme has achieved average annual savings of £376 for people over 60 in the private sector. Those programmes have been driven by expectations of what they can achieve and have exceeded those expectations, fully justifying the investment of £200 million of taxpayers' money. It is that type of approach that is needed to make a practical difference for housing, rather than the targets that amendments 1, 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D propose, which take us no further forward on what housing measures should be used and what they will achieve. Targets should be considered in the appropriate context. In the case of energy efficiency, that context is the Executive's overall strategy, which will be launched next year.
In the housing context, the measures that we should focus on are specific actions, and what levers are available to us and how we should use them. Just as important, we should consider how we can join up wherever possible to meet fuel poverty and other objectives in just the way we are already doing with the central heating and warm deal programmes. I therefore support amendment 85 whole-heartedly and ask members to vote for it. I also ask members to support amendment 86, which is a consequential amendment, following on from the repeal of part VIII of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.
A considerable number of back benchers wish to speak, so they will get a very tight two minutes.
On a point of information, Presiding Officer. If amendment 85 is agreed to, does amendment 1 fall?
No.
No one in the chamber can have any doubt that energy efficiency is important for our nation, and not only for housing. Energy efficiency in housing, however, raises the issue of building standards. Where do we start to tackle that? If we continue to have regulations on building standards, does that mean that we will select different housing sectors? The minister has not mentioned that. Are we talking about new build or about renovation schemes? Should building standards be part of this bill or part of the planning bill? What about the European directive on building standards that is about to come before us?
The minister has said that there will be a strategy—or whatever he will call it—in the new year. The issue is how we get there. We have to deal with waste of energy. We have to deal with the impending crisis in energy production in this country and the fact that an energy shortage will affect not only people and houses, but our economy. The Conservatives do not feel that amendment 85 is enough. On amendment 1, I ask what a target is. What about the cost and the bureaucracy associated with that proposal? It is time we asked the minister to respond positively and to tell us whether he has a programme to collate the scientific and technical knowledge so that we can properly evaluate what is going on. Will he also evaluate health benefits, and the big issue of fuel poverty, which is being felt by more and more people, particularly pensioners and the working poor? We need to do that holistically, not by just grabbing a piece of this and adding it on as an amendment here or there. We need clearly thought out policies on how we will achieve energy efficiency.
I support amendment 85 because I believe that we urgently need a strategy to tackle home energy efficiency. However, there must be a wider energy efficiency strategy. Members of the Environment and Rural Development Committee were told during our work on climate change that we could deliver half of the 60 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions that we must make over the next few decades by energy efficiency alone. There must be a case for joined-up thinking about this, so that we can both tackle fuel poverty and ensure that we create energy efficiency in all our new housing.
Amendment 85 would be a step forward, but I would like the Executive to go further. If the minister replies to the debate, I would be interested to know from him whether he sees a role for targets in the energy efficiency strategy for housing. I know that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development has talked about that in the context of climate change generally. We need to examine all our opportunities for delivering energy efficiency and do it in a joined-up way, particularly with the review of the warm deal and central heating programmes. That is an opportunity to tie together action on fuel poverty and energy efficiency with the opportunities that small-scale renewables bring.
I welcome amendment 85 and hope that it is agreed. This must be seen as the start of the process, however, and a lot more action must follow. By bringing the issue back to the Parliament, I hope that we will reflect the consensus across the parties, which is that we need to take urgent action.
I support Karen Whitefield's amendment 85. The issue is important and her amendment presents good ideas for dealing with it. I would also like to argue for Patrick Harvie's amendment 1, which does not propose some weirdo, obscure, Green thing. The English do it, for God's sake. They do not always do everything right, but the fact that they do what amendment 1 proposes shows that the proposal is not off the wall and that it is quite a credible, sensible thing.
Scandinavia is colder than Scotland, but people there deal with their houses infinitely better and have done for years. We have really got to get a grip on this. The minister made a good speech and the right noises, but the fact is that many people do not believe that we will take energy conservation seriously enough and deliver on it. Targets become a sort of symbol or flag.
Thirteen organisations have produced one of the prettiest bits of lobbying that I have ever received, which is a document that has all their logos on it, as members can see. If 13 Scottish voluntary organisations can agree on an issue, that shows that there may well be something in it.
Whether or not amendment 85 is passed, I suggest that the Executive takes seriously the idea of having some targets. They could be updated every two years, according to the proposal in Patrick Harvie's amendment 1, or in another way if the Executive wishes to do it better. However, the targets must convince people. I think that the Executive's intentions are honest, but it must convince the rest of the world, who are pretty sceptical about Governments in general, if not this Government. I suggest that the Executive takes the target issue seriously.
There is no doubt that energy efficiency in housing is a key issue. It has been on the agenda for many years, in fact. It is welcome that Karen Whitefield has lodged amendment 85, which proposes the right, proportionate approach.
The difficulty with amendment 1 is simply this: it puts one target into a statutory context. I appreciate that that is done in other places, but it is not appropriate in the Scottish context.
Will the member give way?
In a moment. It is better to ensure that the strategy that the ministers will produce has those targets in it, because that would make the strategy more meaningful. It would also mean that the targets could be improved with more flexibility than is the case when primary legislation is involved.
I am grateful to the member for giving way.
Does Mr Robson accept that, if both amendments 85 and 1 are passed, the Executive would be perfectly free to incorporate the targets that would be included in the bill into its own strategy and the wider context that Sarah Boyack mentioned? There does not have to be a completely separate approach. However, my amendment would impose a deadline.
Patrick Harvie has explained why amendment 1 is superfluous. The point is that if the targets were incorporated into the strategy, they could be adapted more flexibly and quickly than would otherwise be the case.
Confusion often arises about fuel poverty and energy efficiency. In eliminating fuel poverty, energy consumption may increase, because people who hitherto could not, become able to afford tolerable levels of warmth in their homes. That is important. A distinction must be made between dealing with fuel poverty and reducing energy consumption. We need to eliminate fuel poverty and increase energy efficiency in dwellings, and Karen Whitefield's strategy is the right approach.
Energy efficiency is extremely important, which is why the SNP was happy to support Patrick Harvie's stage 2 amendment. We will also support his stage 3 amendment when we vote.
Amendment 85 would go some way towards meeting needs, but it is a pity that it was not lodged at stage 2. One is left with the feeling that it has been lodged simply to try to stop Patrick Harvie's amendment being agreed to and to allow the Labour and Liberal parties to vote on something.
I do not understand Euan Robson's comments about statutory targets not being appropriate. If statutory targets are appropriate for legislation in England and Wales, I fail to see why they are not appropriate in the Housing (Scotland) Bill. There are huge energy inefficiency issues in the private rented sector. Warm houses and proper insulation are needed. Lots of heat goes through the walls and roofs of houses in Scotland; sometimes only the pigeons that sit on the roofs are warm.
We will support amendment 85 for the reasons that I have given, but we also urge members to go a bit further and support amendment 1 to ensure that there are statutory targets.
I appreciate the concerns expressed by many members in different parties. They are concerns that are shared by many of us, including all the members of the Communities Committee. Where we sometimes differ is on how we achieve realistic solutions.
Patrick Harvie was correct to point out that his stage 3 amendment is almost identical to the amendment that he lodged at stage 2, but the arguments that were used to reject his amendment at stage 2 still stand.
My amendment is similar to the amendment that was lodged at stage 2, but it is without the secondary target. It has one set of very achievable targets. It was argued against the stage 2 amendment that it went further than England and Wales had gone, but the stage 3 amendment asks us to go only as far as England and Wales have gone.
I did not say that the amendments were identical—I said that they were almost identical. I appreciate that Patrick Harvie has changed his proposal.
The point that I was trying to make was that some arguments that were used at stage 2 still stand. My concern is that if we introduce ad hoc targets now, we might disrupt the current comprehensive energy efficiency approach that the Executive is taking.
However, I agree with Sarah Boyack. If amendment 85 is agreed to—and I welcome the Executive's support for it—there will be no reason why the Executive cannot introduce targets. Many people in the Parliament want targets to be introduced, but we need to be sure and clear about what we want those targets to be and what we want to strive to do properly.
I am disappointed by Tricia Marwick's suggestion that the amendment is an attempt to give the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats something to vote on. She has been a member of the Communities Committee and the Social Justice Committee with me and knows that I have been concerned about the issue that we are discussing and that I have shown commitment to it throughout the six years that the Parliament has been in existence. Therefore, I am disappointed—although not in any way surprised—that she has taken such a cheap political shot. [Interruption.]
Order.
As for Frances Curran, I certainly do not think that amendment 85 is pathetic and nor do the energy efficiency groups. They may want to go further, as they always do—that is their legitimate right—but they certainly would not want my amendment to be rejected. I intend to press amendment 85.
The question is, that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division. I suspend the Parliament for five minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We will now proceed with the division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
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)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
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)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
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)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
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)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
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)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
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)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Martin, Campbell (West of Scotland) (Ind)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Abstentions
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
The result of the division is: For 91, Against 19, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 85 agreed to.
After section 155B
Group 21 is on empty housing. Amendment 66, in the name of Tricia Marwick, is the only amendment in the group.
There are 48,000 empty homes in the private sector in Scotland. That is a considerable number of homes that could be brought back into use. [Interruption.]
One moment, Ms Marwick. There is far too much noise in the chamber.
Previous efforts have been made to reduce the number of empty private sector properties in Scotland. The empty homes initiative, which was launched by the Scottish Executive, ran until 2003 and had an impact on the number of houses that came into use. If that initiative were to be rolled out throughout Scotland, more affordable houses would become available.
Amendment 66 seeks a statement from the Executive that specifies the measures that it believes should be taken to deal with homes that are empty for longer than six months and requires local authorities to look at their areas and propose strategies to deal with the problem.
Houses lie empty in the private sector for a number of reasons. Amendment 66 is not about bringing back into use granny's hieland hame—property that people use because granny has always had it—but about ensuring that empty houses are identified and, where possible, giving support to the owners of those houses and local authorities to bring them back into use.
The highest numbers of private sector empty homes, by local authority area, are found in the areas with the highest demand for rented housing. There are 4,900 empty homes in Edinburgh; 4,240 in Aberdeen; 3,500 in Fife; and 3,500 in Glasgow. The authorities with the highest number of empty homes as a proportion of the local dwelling stock are the Western Isles, Orkney, Aberdeen and Moray.
The Executive believes that the problem of empty houses can be addressed through the local housing strategies that local authorities are required to promote. That will go some way towards dealing with the situation, but we have a problem in Scotland. That is why the bill should state the Parliament's intention to tackle the problem by putting in place the mechanisms to focus on empty homes and to bring into use houses that are presently not in use. That would make other houses available to people who struggle to find a home because they can neither buy nor get a council house. I urge everyone to support amendment 66 because empty homes in Scotland are a genuine problem that needs much more of focus than it has had in the past.
I move amendment 66.
I spoke against the similar amendment that Tricia Marwick lodged at stage 2 and I have serious concerns about amendment 66 today. The exercise that the amendment proposes would be hugely bureaucratic and would mean council officials spending time looking into people's personal circumstances.
I agree that we should look at the thousands of empty homes under local authority management, because more could be done to bring them back into service. I return to the subject of granny's hieland hame, which I mentioned at stage 2. Houses are often empty for good reasons and I will give members some of the reasons that I can think of offhand.
Serving military personnel may have empty homes, but they want to return to their homes; they do not want council officials to deprive them of their homes by putting them on the market. Many elderly people in residential homes hope that they will one day return to their own homes; they want to keep that lifeline. Many people from the Highlands leave their native land to pursue careers and opportunities elsewhere in Scotland, the United Kingdom or the world, but they want to keep their family homes to return to; they do not want us to interfere in that way of life. Finally, people who work in other countries may have empty homes; many Scots work abroad but still wish to retire in their own land. I could go on. The amendment is unworkable for the reasons that I have given.
Amendment 66, in the name of Tricia Marwick, draws much from an amendment that she lodged at stage 2. The main difference is that the words "living accommodation" have been replaced by the word "housing", but other minor changes have been made. We had a good discussion of her stage 2 amendment in committee. It addressed the principle that if houses lie empty for no good reason when people need affordable houses, that is a misuse of the nation's resources and such houses should be brought back into use. That was and is a principle with which I agree. That is why we undertook to review the position, to ensure that, five years on from the successful empty homes initiative, local authorities continue to consider bringing empty property back into use and continue to take active steps to encourage that when the local housing need requires such action.
It is reasonable to expect any empty homes initiative to recognise that it addresses housing need; it does not necessarily apply throughout the country. Housing need is expressed in different ways in different parts of the country and houses are empty for different reasons in different parts. An empty property may be granny's hieland hame or a hard-to-let house in the centre of Glasgow.
That is why I am glad that, when we consider the issue, we see the broader context of how we retrieve houses for public use by huge investment in the social rented sector—the £1 billion of debt that was lifted from Glasgow is a good example of that—and by recovering for communities housing that was at one time hard to let and which people now want to be in.
We are taking action in the private rented sector. People are abandoning their homes because of mismanagement, poor management or appalling management of houses round about them that are owned by private landlords, who see such properties as an investment and not a business and who see their tenants as a means of earning money rather than people whom they have a responsibility to manage and take care of. The key purpose of private landlord registration is to drive out of the sector people who have no concern for or interest in the people who live in their houses or the people who live round about them. That is one way in which we will retrieve communities and houses.
Communities Scotland has been asked to expand on the information that will be covered in local housing authorities' local housing strategies to address the question. Local authorities will be expected to include in their strategies an assessment of where their action on empty homes could contribute usefully to meeting housing need throughout or in any part of their areas. The assessment should cover the private and social rented sectors. When they think that action could make such a contribution, we will expect to see what approaches they plan to use to address the matter.
I appreciate that one or two members might have felt that some local authorities were not giving the issue sufficient recognition in their local housing strategies or in the action that they had taken. I do not necessarily accept that view. Some local authorities have very clear strategies and are very effective in securing the reuse of empty houses. I am confident that the revision of local housing strategies will focus efforts and I hope that such changes will reassure members, as they appear to have reassured Shelter, that we have an appropriate and effective way to tackle empty housing in areas where it is a concern.
The approach that I have outlined is sufficient for the purpose. The amendment is neither necessary nor desirable. It would commit the Executive and local authorities to undertaking a range of obligations. Even in areas where empty housing is not an issue, new research would have to be commissioned.
We listened to and considered the case for empty homes management orders and compulsory leasing during the bill's early stages. We concluded that they would neither meet the objective of providing affordable homes nor provide permanent accommodation for homeless people. At stage 2, we listened to and considered the case for producing a statement on securing the reuse of empty living accommodation. We concluded then that, to be useful, empty housing must be of a suitable type and in a location that is acceptable to a tenant. Through local housing strategies, we have found a way of getting local authorities to address the question where they need to.
Tricia Marwick's option would be neither pain free nor cost free. It would involve resources from the centre and costs at local level, and it would not necessarily achieve Tricia Marwick's aims. I urge members to accept that the Executive's plans will meet those aims, and I invite Tricia Marwick to withdraw amendment 66.
I thank the minister for accepting that to date there has been a failure to tackle the question of empty housing, and I accept that local housing strategies will now contain a requirement on local authorities to consider empty housing. I am glad that, following my amendments at stages 2 and 3, ministers have moved on this issue. I therefore seek leave to withdraw amendment 66.
Amendment 66, by agreement, withdrawn.
After section 159
Amendment 1 moved—[Patrick Harvie].
Amendment 1A moved—[Frances Curran].
The question is, that amendment 1A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Martin, Campbell (West of Scotland) (Ind)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (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)
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)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
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)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
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)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 84, Abstentions 20.
Amendment 1A disagreed to.
Amendment 1B moved—[Frances Curran].
The question is, that amendment 1B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Martin, Campbell (West of Scotland) (Ind)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (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)
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)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
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)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 83, Abstentions 20.
Amendment 1B disagreed to.
Amendment 1C moved—[Frances Curran].
The question is, that amendment 1C be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Martin, Campbell (West of Scotland) (Ind)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (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)
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)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
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)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
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)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 15, Against 77, Abstentions 20.
Amendment 1C disagreed to.
Amendment 1D moved—[Frances Curran].
The question is, that amendment 1D be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Martin, Campbell (West of Scotland) (Ind)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (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)
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)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
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)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
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)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 77, Abstentions 20.
Amendment 1D disagreed to.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Martin, Campbell (West of Scotland) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (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)
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)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
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)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
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)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 36, Against 76, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Section 160—Power to obtain information etc
Amendment 67 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.
Section 165—Orders and regulations
Amendment 68 moved—[Mary Scanlon].
The question is, that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Campbell (West of Scotland) (Ind)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
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)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
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)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
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)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 99, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 68 disagreed to.
Section 168—Interpretation
Amendment 69 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.
Amendment 87 moved—[Mary Scanlon].
The question is, that amendment 87 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Campbell (West of Scotland) (Ind)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
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)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
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)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
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)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 100, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 87 disagreed to.
Schedule 2
Private rented housing committees: procedure etc
Amendments 7 to 10 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.
Schedule 4A
HMO amenity notices: enforcement etc
Amendment 48 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.
Schedule 5
Consequential changes
Amendments 3 and 86 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.
Schedule 6
Repeals
Amendment 4 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments.