Official Report 1247KB pdf
In dealing with amendments, members should have the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. 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. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat as soon as possible after the group has been called. The Parliament is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed to each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point.
Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
Section 1—Non-domestic rates: liability of owners of unoccupied properties
Group 1 is on unoccupied properties: listed buildings. Amendment 1, in the name of Paul Sweeney, is grouped with amendments 2, 4, 5 and 6.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments. Although these are unexpected circumstances, they enable me to bring to light a long-running issue that I have been dealing with in Glasgow over the past 18 months or so. Glasgow City Council’s removal of the previous exemption from non-domestic rates for vacant listed buildings has generally been a positive thing for the city in creating incentives for building owners to utilise vacant floor space and to bring listed buildings that were derelict back into productive use. We have seen a flurry of planning applications going through the council in relation to that. The issue has been a long-running one in Glasgow, where there is enough empty floor space in the city centre to fill the Empire State building in New York.
However, a number of complications have arisen, and the council has said that what has happened was unforeseen. It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is important for all levels of government to be aware of such issues as they arise and to adjust accordingly to ensure that the public good is maintained as best it can be.
An issue has arisen in circumstances in which, for example, a building preservation trust or a charity has acquired a listed building that is vacant or derelict and that would require a lot of investment to bring it back into productive use. It might be the case that the organisation has secured grant funding, but, unfortunately, in undertaking the restoration programme, the grant funding has fallen short of the cost of the renovation, so the project has stalled. The organisation is then levied with building rates for a property that it cannot occupy or generate revenue from, which threatens its viability as a going concern. That is exactly what has happened to the Govanhill Baths Building Preservation Trust. I am sure that we all agree that it would be absurd to see the whole thing unravelling after all that effort.
The same thing is happening with commercial property. For example, Stephen Lewis of HFD Property Group, who has been looking at a listed property in the city centre with a view to renovating it to bring it back into productive use, has said that he did not know that he was going to be charged business rates for several years, when it will take a year to get planning consent and another two years to renovate the building. He did not programme that into his business plan when he was looking to renovate that building.
Mr Lewis says that it is absurd that, with, say, the old Clydesdale Bank building on St Vincent Place, if he converted it into a hotel, the hotel could move in and not have to pay rates for a year, even though it would not need that exemption, because it would be generating revenue. The incentives are all in the wrong place.
I hope that the minister can see that there are scenarios in which the current arrangements do not work well. As a result, the market for listed buildings in Glasgow has frozen. There is no desire from people to buy those buildings.
I met a guy who was looking to buy the old Tusk nightclub and the Waverley tea room in Shawlands. He was really enthusiastic when I first met him. He told me that the price had just been reduced massively and that it could be a real bargain for him. I informed him that the reason why the owner had reduced the price was that they were getting charged for business rates on the empty building. I could see his face drop, and he said, “I can’t afford to take the hit on business rates for two or three years until I get planning consent and renovate it”. His interest suddenly ebbed away and that building still sits there derelict—it is a blight on the public realm and an underutilised economic asset.
My amendments are probing amendments to illustrate to the Government some of the unintended consequences of the removal of the exemption, as devolved to local authorities. We have seen some local authorities do it—Glasgow City Council being one of the most notable ones. Although the approach has been generally beneficial, it has caused problems. I hope that the Government is alive to those problems and that we can work collaboratively with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities to address them.
I know that Glasgow is considering a recommended solution. The proposal, which comes from the built heritage commission for Glasgow, is that empty property relief be granted for listed buildings at 100 per cent for a period of up to two years from the date of acquisition, on condition of demonstrating real development progress. That would include design progress—for example, appointing a design team, commissioning design work and incurring and paying design team fees—and a programme that can be linked to Royal Institute of British Architects stages of development; planning progress, including a pre-application discussion with the planning authority or an application for planning consent, with planning queries being addressed timeously; and construction progress, including showing that tenders are under way and that contractors are appointed.
Those criteria would be set to avoid an owner giving the appearance of developing a project without there being any real action towards getting on site. It would avoid bad-faith acting from speculators or land bankers. It is also important to note that, once construction is under way, the reliefs would be granted for premises that are under construction. There would be a long stop date of two years, with agreed milestones if insufficient progress had been made. That would create really powerful incentives for owners to bring the buildings to market and to get renovations under way.
More detailed criteria could be involved; for example, if a charitable organisation is trying to restore a building but its grant funding falls short, it would be crazy for the Government to fund it through grants on the one hand but tax those away with rates on the other. That would undermine the purpose of a charity trying to save a listed building that might provide great community benefits.
I mentioned the example of Govanhill baths and some of the city centre projects that have been stalled or frustrated by the rates issue. There is also Flemington house in Springburn. Marcus Dean, who did up the Abbey Mill business centre in Paisley, took the building on when Glasgow Kelvin College left it about 15 years ago. About a third of the building was turned into a business centre and various organisations were located in it. Two thirds of the floor space was still unused, because it was very expensive to deal with the asbestos, the electrics and so on. Marcus Dean said that he was making decent enough money from rental income on the building to wash its façade, but then he got suddenly hammered with a rates bill for all the empty floor space. That sank the business model overnight, and he had to evict the entire building. Set designers, studio people, artists and charities were all kicked out, because he can claim a year’s temporary exemption for a fully empty building. That permutation is crazy. It has resulted in a stupid outcome for Springburn, it has undermined the local economy and a lot of small businesses and organisations are really stressed by it.
Marcus Dean is faced with the dilemma of what to do with the empty building. The only thing that he can do is convert it into student flats, because it is single aspect. He cannot create dual aspects in the building because of the listed building constraints. In that scenario, it is obvious that he should be able to work with the local authority, which would realise that he is trying to do the right thing and is keeping the building wind and watertight and is maintaining it to a baseline level. The council would see that the building has been used and that the owner is aiming to build towards full restoration, and would therefore give him some leeway.
Currently, the system is purely binary—it is on or off; the owner either gets hammered with full rates or they do not. There needs to be a lot more slack in the system and a lot more attentiveness to the permutations and to the difficulties and complexities with listed buildings. That is what my amendments are all about. I am trying to signal to the Government that there are practical issues with how the removal of the exemption has been implemented in the past couple of years, particularly in Glasgow.
Glasgow City Council is making an effort to work through this, and we need that to be standard best practice across Scotland. That should involve working with COSLA. I hope that the Government can take a convening role in trying to make that work sooner rather than later, because we are seeing a lot of projects in the here and now that are being strained and damaged by it. The Springburn example is just the latest example of the issue. It is very frustrating to act as a glorified estate agent for charities, trying to find new accommodation for them. Let us try to avoid the problem at source.
I move amendment 1.
I thank Paul Sweeney for lodging the amendments. I will talk about how they do or do not fit into the bill in a minute, but first, I recognise the effort, work and focus that he has put into this issue and his commitment to and energy in lodging the amendments at short notice.
The member highlights an important issue, and the Government recognises the intent behind his amendments. However, it is also important to recognise that the bill is intended to rectify a legislative error as quickly as possible and to enable the non-domestic rate system to continue to operate in the way that it has been universally understood and operated in practice since 1 April 2023. It is a short bill with a narrow focus: the sole intention is to rectify the specific issue as quickly as possible.
Empty property relief has always been devolved in full and has included listed buildings, at the request of COSLA. Councils already have the powers to deliver on the substance of Mr Sweeney’s amendments and to offer £105 million of local relief funding a year. That funding has been made available to councils to offer relief to unoccupied properties, including empty listed buildings, as councils see fit and to reflect local needs.
Some local authorities take into account the challenge of putting listed buildings back into use. For instance, Argyll and Bute Council reinvests a proportion of the savings from the changes that it made to empty property relief into a grant incentivisation programme that specifically targets long-term empty, listed properties.
For the reasons that I have outlined, the Government cannot support amendments 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, in the name of Paul Sweeney, and I urge members to resist those amendments. However, I have written to COSLA today, ahead of its leaders meetings tomorrow, to encourage local authorities to take into account the challenges of putting listed buildings back into use when they are designating local relief schemes.
I recognise the scenarios that Mr Sweeney describes on the unintended consequences and perverse incentives that result from the system. The Government is happy to engage with Mr Sweeney and COSLA to work through how we can deliver the results that he seeks.
I call Paul Sweeney to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 1.
I appreciate the minister’s response and the helpful conversations that he and I have had with each other and with representatives of COSLA. I recognise that the bill might not be the optimal vehicle to fix the issue, given time considerations and the need to keep the bill streamlined.
Nonetheless, I am very vexed by the issue, and I am keen to find a solution to it sooner rather than later. Although I am not minded to take forward the amendments because of the complicating factors that they might introduce, I would like to see a practical solution reached—either with COSLA or, potentially, through other legislation, such as the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill—sooner rather than later.
Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 2 not moved.
Section 1 agreed to.
After section 1
The next group is on the liability of owners of unoccupied properties: guidance. Amendment 3, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is the only amendment in the group.
Paul Sweeney rightly identifies real-world problems in relation to listed buildings, but we have also heard about real-world problems in connection to commercial properties. My colleagues who have engaged in the debate over the past day or so have highlighted real issues around perfectly good buildings being demolished and businesses collapsing—owners handing back the keys—simply because of the way in which the legislation has been put into practice. Now, we discover that there was no legal basis for any of it.
Amendment 3 introduces a straightforward requirement that should already be a matter of good administrative practice: it places on ministers a duty to publish clear, accessible guidance on how the restored liability for unoccupied properties is to operate in practice. That guidance would cover how part occupation is treated, how rateable values are to be apportioned and how the new provision interacts with relief schemes. The requirement for guidance is not an embellishment—it is essential to the proper operation of the law. Let us be clear about why that matters: when a Government has already demonstrated that it failed to understand the interaction of statutory provisions, Parliament has every right to insist on clarity.
14:15This mistake is not theoretical: it carries a real-world exposure of up to £350 million or £400 million. Ratepayers, councils and assessors deserve more than reassurances from the very ministers who created the problem. Guidance is the bare minimum safeguard that is required to protect them from further uncertainty and inconsistency.
We are dealing with a complex area of law. Part occupation cases are notoriously technical; apportionment decisions vary across local authorities; the interaction with empty property release schemes is already uneven; and the recent past gives no confidence whatever that the Government understands detail or anticipates consequences. The Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act 2020 failed precisely because ministers misunderstood the legal position and failed to anticipate the effects of their own drafting. If the law is unclear, the Parliament has failed in its most basic constitutional function and it is not optional for the Government to get that right—it is a duty.
We must also not forget the experience of businesses in recent years. They have faced a series of botched and unclear initiatives from this Scottish National Party Government. We have had the sudden collapse of the deposit return scheme, the chaotic roll-out of the workplace parking levy, the disastrous handling of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, the constant churn of contradictory guidance during the roll-out of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 and—I almost forgot—the visitor levy, which saw the minister himself sending out two contradictory letters within a few days of each other. The common thread is an administration that does not do detail very well and that does not do clarity, but it is businesses and communities that have to pick up the pieces every time.
This bill exists because of one major legislative failure, and one that we cannot allow to be repeated. The absence of clear guidance would inevitably lead to inconsistent decisions, unnecessary disputes and avoidable appeals. Councils would be left to interpret the legislation with no authoritative direction; ratepayers would be left guessing about their liabilities and assessors would be forced to adjudicate on matters that should already have been clarified centrally. That is not acceptable.
Amendment 3 would do something else that is crucial, because it would reinforce post-legislative scrutiny. Without clarity at the outset, scrutiny becomes nothing more than an exercise in cleaning up ministerial mistakes, as we are doing today, rather than ensuring effective policy. Amendment 3 would build into the legislation a discipline that the Government has consistently refused to apply to itself.
There is also the issue of accountability. When ministers get the law wrong, it should not be for businesses, councils or taxpayers to absorb the cost but for ministers to put right what they broke in the first place. Clear guidance is the minimum instrument of accountability that is available to the Parliament.
I conclude by saying that amendment 3 would create a simple and proportionate obligation. Ministers must publish guidance and that guidance must explain how the new section operates in real-world scenarios such as those that Paul Sweeney discussed in relation to listed buildings. The guidance must also be available to all parties who rely on it. That is how competent Government proceeds, it is how transparent Government proceeds and it is how a Parliament that cares about legal certainty proceeds.
Amendment 3 is about professionalism, but the fact that Parliament must legislate for that basic clarity is, in itself, a commentary on the state of governance under the SNP. When a Government repeatedly drafts flawed legislation, repeatedly fails to anticipate the consequences and repeatedly leaves implementation to guesswork, improvisation and confusion, Parliament must intervene. Amendment 3 is that intervention. It would ensure that the law that we pass would be applied fairly and consistently and would prevent the Parliament from being asked yet again to clean up a mess that should never have been created. I urge members to support my amendment.
I move amendment 3.
The amendment would require ministers to publish guidance on owners’ liability to pay non-domestic rates on unoccupied properties. The amendment is not appropriate, given the responsibilities of local authorities and assessors in this process. Local authorities are responsible for collecting rates, awarding any reliefs and interpreting the relevant legislation in doing so. Council appeal processes are in place for cases where people disagree with how they do that.
Furthermore, councils have discretionary powers under section 24A of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 to ask the assessor to “apportion the rateable value” on properties that are partly unoccupied for short periods of time, an issue that is raised in Mr Kerr’s amendment. It is not the Government’s intention to impinge on local authorities’ freedom to do that by issuing guidance on the matter.
The amendment would also have us specify
“how the rateable value will be calculated and apportioned in such cases”.
The valuation of all non-domestic property is, rightly, a matter for the Scottish assessors, who are independent of central and local government. The independence of valuation is critical for the credibility of the system, and the Scottish Government has no locus to intervene in the objective valuation process. I therefore cannot support the amendment, and I encourage members not to support it either, as it would directly interfere with the powers and responsibilities of local authorities and with the valuation of assessors.
I call Stephen Kerr to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 3.
I am disappointed, but not surprised, to hear the minister’s response. I think that some humility on the part of the Scottish Government—and the SNP—is in order.[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Kerr.
SNP members are not known for their humility. However, given the mess that we find ourselves in, an apology from the minister might be in order. I have not heard a minister give an apology to everyone concerned.
That is why amendment 3 is so important. We have been presented with such a massive legislative failure—that is what we are dealing with—and the Parliament has been asked to correct it, at speed, without all the proper processes being followed and in the name of emergency legislation, when we heard just yesterday that ministers have known about the issue since before the summer recess.
We are now being asked to accept, in the case of my amendment, that we do not need explanation or guidance. I do not think that clear statutory guidance is a luxury; it is a bare minimum protection that we should now give ratepayers, councils and assessors, and they should expect it from the Government.
Therefore, I will press amendment 3.
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. As this is the first division of the stage, I will suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow members to access the voting system.
14:23 Meeting suspended.
We move to the vote on amendment 3. Members should cast their votes now.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, convener. I could not connect but I would have voted no.
Thank you, Mr Yousaf. We will ensure that that is recorded.
For
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer]
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra]
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Lorna Slater]
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor]
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 25, Against 84, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
Amendments 4 to 6 not moved.
The next group is entitled “Reporting and statements on requirement for legislation (including defects in legislation)”. Amendment 7, in the name of Craig Hoy, is grouped with amendments 8, 11 to 13, 20 and 21.
This group of amendments explores the issues of transparency and accountability—two issues that I do not think the Government is taking sufficiently seriously in the way in which it is approaching this bill and in the journey that we have been on to get to this point.
My Scottish Conservative colleagues and I have been clear that we are deeply concerned by the bill and the extraordinary circumstances surrounding it. If the Parliament is to pass the bill, we must ensure that such a failure can never happen again.
My amendment 7 would require the Scottish ministers to notify the Parliament within 21 days of a defect being identified in legislation on non-domestic rates for unoccupied properties. As we know, officials and ministers have been aware of this error for many months, but the Parliament was not told until this week. That delay was simply unacceptable.
Does Mr Hoy accept that flagging up an error before a solution had been found would invite people to take money away from the public purse?
It is about doing what is right. The Government learned of the issue back in June, but the Parliament found out only in November. If the Government is sufficiently confident that the bill’s provisions can be applied retrospectively, we need have no fear of such claims being made. I hope that, if ministers are serious about transparency, they will support amendment 7 to ensure that the Parliament is informed promptly, not at a time of their choosing.
We will support amendment 8, in the name of Stephen Kerr. Mr Kerr is correct that it is essential that a clear account of when ministers learned of the error, and how they responded, is published in full, if the Parliament and the country are to understand what went wrong and to ensure that it never happens again.
Equally, we will support amendment 11, in the name of Douglas Ross. Given the seriousness of the failure, the Parliament deserves full transparency about who knew what and when—not the usual smoke and mirrors that we get from the Government. The proposal in amendment 11 for a formal statement and publication of all the relevant correspondence is an essential step towards restoring trust, not just remedying the problem that the bill rightly identifies.
We will also support amendment 12, in the name of Douglas Ross. It is vital that the Parliament understands not only how the error was identified but why ministers initially gave one date and later revised it. That was either sloppy or dishonest, and full transparency with the Presiding Officer and with Opposition parties is essential. Amendment 12 will ensure that that clarity is finally delivered. Given the scale of the legislative failure and the real-world consequences for businesses across Scotland, it is essential that we fully understand how the situation happened.
Amendment 13 would ask the Auditor General for Scotland—the head of an independent and respected body in Scotland—to conduct an independent review. We now know that officials identified the defect long before ministers acted. That, in turn, raises serious questions about internal controls and communication within the Government.
Only an external authoritative review can provide the clarity and accountability that people deserve in the circumstances. If ministers want to rebuild trust, they should welcome independent scrutiny. Therefore, I hope that they will support my amendment 13 and allow the Auditor General to shine a light on what went wrong, so that lessons can be learned and the mistake is not repeated.
We will support Douglas Ross’s amendment 20, because it is vital that the statement on the bill’s introduction takes effect before the provisions in the rest of the bill are commenced. That is a sensible step that would guarantee the Parliament the full facts up front rather than after the legislation is in force.
We will also support Douglas Ross’s amendment 21, which would rightly prevent ministers from commencing the rest of the bill’s provisions until they had made a full and transparent statement about how the error arose. That would ensure that accountability came before implementation, not after it.
I move amendment 7.
My colleague Craig Hoy is absolutely right about the need for lessons to be learned. One of my abiding memories of my time in the Scottish Parliament will be hearing a former First Minister constantly repeating the refrain “I will take no lessons from”. Unfortunately, that could almost be the strapline of the SNP Government, because, as I said in my previous remarks, it is not prepared to exercise some plain humility and accept that there are lessons to be learned. [Laughter.] SNP members think that it is funny that they passed flawed legislation. I do not think that it is funny at all.
Does Stephen Kerr accept that every Government makes mistakes and that we should not be making a mountain out of a molehill? Yesterday, the Office for Budget Responsibility leaked the budget before it was given, so Westminster makes mistakes, too.
It is news to me that the OBR is part of the executive at Westminster. Sure, Governments make mistakes, but Governments that are grown up and mature fess up. This is not a Government that fesses up. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
It is a Government whose instincts are, sadly—in the minds of many members and people outside the Parliament—to reach for a cover-up and perpetuate a secret Scotland that the public are to know nothing about.
Amendment 8 asks for something that should never have required an amendment—it asks ministers to provide the Parliament with a clear, factual and comprehensive account of how such a serious error occurred. The error is not minor, by the way. John Mason referred to a “molehill”. It is not a molehill; it is a major flaw in a critical piece of legislation. Businesses depend on clarity on such matters, and local authorities require clarity when carrying out their legal requirements, but they do not have it, so it is not a molehill.
Amendment 8 asks ministers to account to the Parliament for what happened. That is a basic expectation for any Executive. I remind John Mason and SNP back benchers who sit and chunter through our speeches that our first duty as parliamentarians is to hold the Government to account. Our job is to make the Government honest by shining a clear light of accountability on it. I do not know why some members, particularly members of the SNP, think we are here if it is not to do something as basic as that.
I have been pulled up about amendment 8, but it is quite generous because it says that,
“within 3 months of Royal Assent”,
ministers must
“publish and lay before the Scottish Parliament a report on the circumstances”
that led to the bill. Other colleagues have higher standards when it comes to what they expect from the Government, and I bow to their experience in such matters.
Let us be clear about the context behind amendment 8. For more than two years, ministers did not realise the consequences of their own drafting. When the error was finally identified, did they deal with the issue “at pace”? That is another of the SNP’s favourite phrases. No one of any kind of reasonable disposition would say that they rushed to bring the bill to the Parliament, because they did not immediately disclose the error. They did not divulge it. They did not notify the Parliament. They did not alert those who were affected. As I said, they chose their favourite device—silence. That concealment was a conscious decision, not an accident. That is why the Conservatives have brought up these issues time and again and will continue to do so, particularly in this group of amendments.
The consequences of that decision are measured not in inconvenience or administrative delay but in hundreds of millions of pounds of potential public exposure. To carry public risk of that scale and deliberately fail to inform the Parliament is a breach of the most basic principles of responsible government. This is not a “molehill” or a minor defect at the margins of legislation; it is a failure at the core of good government. It reveals carelessness and incompetence in drafting and scrutiny, which should be alarming to the Administration and to us, as members of Parliament.
This is a direct consequence of ministers who have a track record in legislating for headlines, not outcomes. Some phrases come easily to SNP ministers, but the idea of outcomes being derived from the things that they do as a Government is a foreign concept to them, because I am afraid that they often legislate for theatre, not for the real world.
Amendment 8 would call time on that culture. It would require ministers to account for themselves on the record in a way that could not be evaded or spun by the hundreds of spin doctors that they regularly employ to create the confusion and uncertainty of mixed messaging. Amendment 8 would force them to set out the full timeline of what they knew, when they knew it and what they did with that knowledge. It would compel clarity about the delays, the silence and the decisions that led to the so-called emergency legislation. I think that we are all aware that there are still questions about the bill and this Parliament’s competence on the matter. There has been virtually no scrutiny and, not for the first time, utter disregard for the authority of this Parliament.
It is a straightforward principle that, when ministers make a mistake of this magnitude, they must face the consequences. They must account for it. Despite what SNP members will, no doubt, be saying as they chunter away in the background during our speeches, this is not about partisan advantage. It is about our fulfilling our duty and responsibility as parliamentarians. It is about the relationship between this Parliament and the Executive. The problem with the SNP is that too many of its back benchers think that they are there simply to support the Executive without question. Without the structures of the constitutional arrangement, with the Parliament functioning as a means to hold the Government to account and keep it honest, accountability collapses. When accountability collapses, public trust collapses with it. That is what the SNP Government is suffering from—a collapse of public trust.
Amendment 8 would restore the basic discipline that the Government has abandoned. It would give the Parliament the information that it needed to ensure that such a failure could never occur again, and it would make it clear that ministers could not simply legislate their way out of embarrassment, particularly on an emergency basis, without answering for the choices that brought us here. I urge members to support amendment 8.
14:45
The amendments that I have lodged in this group are on issues that I have been raising for the past two days, and I will repeat them today. They are about transparency. Some members think that this is a small issue, but we believe that it is a big issue, because we are speaking about £350 million of taxpayers’ money. There is an issue. A flaw in the legislation was identified and the Government has gone through the process to bring us to the stage that we are at today, where we are speaking on amendments to this bill, which will potentially be passed later.
On the very first day that we discussed this—Tuesday—I asked the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans whether the Government would release information on the bill, to be wholly transparent. His response at the time was that the Government would consider doing that. However, we do not have long to consider that information, because the bill is now before us.
During yesterday’s stage 1 debate, the Minister for Public Finance, Ivan McKee, was asked by Pam Duncan-Glancy whether the Government would be transparent by publishing all the details surrounding what went wrong, when it knew about it, how it knew about it and who it discussed it with. The minister was relatively positive, which is why I am hopeful that the Government will support amendments 11 and 12 and consequential amendments 20 and 21, in my name. That is all that I am asking for, really.
We have had a robust debate already, and members are on opposing sides. Some think that we should just nod the bill through without any amendments and correct the failure in the Government’s legislation. However, I do not think that that is enough. We have to know why things went wrong, why an error of that scale occurred and why it has taken us so long to get to this stage.
Amendment 11 is on the discussions between the Government, COSLA—the representative body of all 32 local authorities—and individual local authorities. We found out yesterday that one local authority notified the Government of an issue on 23 June this year. Yesterday, the minister could not name that authority—I am not sure whether that is still the position. If that is the position, there might be good reasons for it, but we need to know whether the Government then went to the other 31 local authorities and said, “This issue has been raised with us. We’re worried about it and we might need to bring emergency legislation into the Scottish Parliament, so tell us what you’ve discovered in your local authority about the implementation of the bill and collecting revenue from businesses.”
I am also asking for evidence of any discussions with owners of unoccupied properties who are paying non-domestic rates. Was the Government alerted to the error in some way by others, either indirectly through local authorities or directly by businesses?
There is no doubt that NDR is not a popular tax. There was significant opposition to it. As we heard from my colleagues Murdo Fraser and Craig Hoy during the stage 1 debate yesterday, some businesses have not been happy about paying the tax and will be looking at legal challenge to the bill. As I explained to Michelle Thomson yesterday, the legal challenge has been aided by the Government’s own policy memorandum to the bill, which states that it is potentially not compliant with the European convention on human rights.
In subsection (3) of the proposed section in amendment 11, I ask for the Government’s briefings, because we know from the letter that was released by the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans yesterday that officials took a couple of months to look into the issue. I still cannot understand why, when there was an issue of such scale—the Government was worried about losing £350 million—officials took from 23 June to 13 August to decide that something had to be done about it. That seems an awfully long time. What was the correspondence between the Government and officials at that point? Did officials hold up their hands and say, “Look, we’ve made a mistake here”? We do not know. We do not know any of the details. We do not know whether there will be further advice to officials to ensure that future legislation, in a similar vein or completely different, will not fall down in the same way.
Douglas Ross is absolutely right to pursue a full, proper and transparent explanation of how we have got to this stage. My concern is whether we want to extend the legislation to seek a narrative by way of explanation instead of allowing statutes to do what they do, which is, in effect, to create and impose rules moving forward. If Mr Ross had another vehicle through which to achieve his end of full transparency and an explanation, would he have needed to pursue the amendments? Or would he have taken that alternative route if it was available?
I would absolutely have taken that alternative route. [Interruption.] My colleague Stephen Kerr does not think that that route is available, but let me tell him that it is.
If the minister, in summing up on this group, gives an assurance to this Parliament and says, “Douglas Ross, you have convinced me”—I find that highly unlikely, but if he does—and if the Government will provide the information, I give an assurance to the minister that I will withdraw all four of my amendments—[Interruption.] I will. I am genuinely making that offer.
Martin Whitfield has raised a fair point. It may be that the explanation should not be in legislation, but I was glad that the convener, in her role as Presiding Officer, allowed my amendments today, because they are unusual. However, the bill is unusual, because it is fixing a problem. It is doing so in an expedited way, which is why we have to look at alternative methods. However, there is an alternative method, if the minister takes it.
Does Douglas Ross agree that, notwithstanding what happens to the amendment, the requirement for an explanation, transparency and publication of how we arrived at this point will continue?
It absolutely will. I hope that colleagues know me well enough to know that I will not let this go. Again, the matter will be resolved if the Government provides all the information. Yesterday, the Minister for Public Finance said to Pam Duncan-Glancy that the Government would be transparent and release information. The Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans said the same on Tuesday. I am not asking the Government to do anything more than it has already roughly committed to. The Government says that it will be transparent on the legislation.
The purpose of subsection (3)(c) in the proposed section in amendment 11 is to make it clear which ministers knew about the issue, and when. I believe that Ben Macpherson, who has returned to Government, was the minister who took the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill through—that is my understanding; I am sorry if that is incorrect—and Kate Forbes was the minister who lodged amendments at stage 2. The First Minister was here—I see that he has left. When did the First Minister know about it? When did the minister who is now taking this bill through know about it? When did the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans know about it? I am asking for a simple list—for example: “Ivan McKee was told on this date.” Kate Forbes had to be informed, because it was legislation that she was taking through before she became Deputy First Minister. It would be handy to know that, and there is no real problem with that being made public.
I had no intention of lodging amendment 12 until yesterday afternoon, when an email pinged into my inbox to say that Graeme Dey had got it wrong in the chamber. His response to me in an intervention, when he said that the Government had first been made aware of the issue in August, was incorrect. The Government was first made aware of it on 23 June. The reason why I cannot let the matter go is that the August date was not mentioned only on one occasion, by Graeme Dey; the August date was given to Opposition parties when there were discussions and briefings about the need for the legislation.
I will give way to the minister, because I think that he was involved, as the minister who is now taking the bill through. Is it correct that Opposition parties were told that it was August when the Government was informed? That was clearly not the case, because the Government knew about it when it dropped on 23 June.
Just for clarification, ministers were informed on 21 August. We have subsequently discovered that the inquiry had been in the system with officials since June, as was highlighted yesterday. However, ministers were informed on 21 August. In the conversation that we had with business managers a few days ago, when we were putting together the timetable for the bill, we were asked when we had been informed. Mr Dey and I were both informed about it in the latter part of August.
That is very different. As I understand it, the discussion with Opposition parties was about when the Government had been made aware of it, and the Government became aware of it when Government officials were told about it. Therefore, I have concerns that briefings to Opposition parties and, potentially, the Presiding Officer were based on an incorrect date. What else is incorrect?
There is also a point about officials being notified. The minister has used interesting language, so I will give way to him again. He said that ministers “subsequently” found out about it. When did the minister find out that the date was actually 23 June?
Very recently.
Wow. That is worse.
We now know that Government ministers were told on 21 August. We are now in November, and they are finding out that their officials knew about the issue months beforehand. Basically, Ivan McKee’s admission, right now—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will, because this is important and I am keen to get the minister’s response.
The admission from Ivan McKee right now is that, when Government ministers found out about a flaw in the legislation that could cost the Government £350 million, not a single minister asked when officials had found out about it. Work by Scottish Government civil servants was going on for two months to find a solution to a problem that was potentially going to cost the Government £350 million and ministers did not know about it. Is that true?
I would like to make the member and the chamber aware that we have laid out the timeline of what happened and when with the Scottish Parliament information centre. All the information is available and has been published. The timeline is clear and is as we have articulated.
A council made an inquiry of Scottish Government officials about a query that it had. Government officials saw it as routine and did not realise the implications of it. They processed it through the normal processes over that period, and, in the middle of August—I think 13 August—they realised the potential implications of it and then informed ministers. There was then a period in which confirmation was required of legal sources, because we will not just jump into something without having a legal understanding of the implications. We had clarity on that in September, and we made a decision that the solution was to proceed with the bill. That is the timeline, which I explained yesterday. It has been laid out and has been published by SPICe, and I am happy to continue to explain it to Douglas Ross.
I do not need it to be explained to me; I have it printed in front of me, because the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans had to write to me because of the answer that he gave in the chamber. The bit that I am finding more puzzling and more troubling is the minister’s most recent admission that Government ministers only recently became aware of the 23 June inquiry. Months later, that inquiry has led to the Parliament having to sit as a Committee of the Whole Parliament to rush through emergency legislation to fix a problem that could potentially cost the taxpayer £350 million. This is why I believe that my amendments are important: in debating them, we have got a little bit more transparency.
The minister is shaking his head, so I will give way to him again. Can he tell us the date on which he found out that the Government had received an inquiry in June rather than, as was originally thought, in August?
It has all been laid out for Mr Ross, so I do not know why he keeps asking about it. I know that he enjoys digging around it, but the position about what happened and when it happened is all clearly laid out for him to read and understand.
It is not. The one thing that is not in the letter is when the Government became aware that the August date that it was told of by its officials was not the start of the process. We have now accepted, because the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans has corrected the record, that the Scottish Government was first made aware on 23 June and ministers were told on 21 August. So, on 23 June, the Government received an issue; on 21 August, ministers knew about it. Then, in November, when preparing for the bill, ministers told Opposition parties and, potentially, the Presiding Officer that August was when they first became aware of the issue. However, during the course of the debate on my amendments, the minister has said that ministers became aware only very recently. What is the date on which ministers—very recently—became aware of the 23 June inquiry of the Scottish Government? That is what I am asking, minister.
As I said, it is in the timeline.
It is not in here.
The timeline is very clear about what happened and when. Ministers were informed of the issue on 21 August. The inquiry that was lodged in June was a query about a situation at a council. The implications of that, which led to our having to take the bill through, were not realised by Government officials until much later, when they processed that query and understood the implications. That took them quite some time. There was an understanding of what we are talking about today, and its implications became apparent, only later, when ministers were informed in August.
15:00
I know all of that. What I do not know is when ministers became aware that their opinion, which they expressed to other political parties, that the issue was highlighted to the Government in August was, in fact, incorrect.
Someone has said to the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, “Mr Dey, you responded to the intervention from Mr Ross by saying August, but August is not the correct date.” Is the Government now confirming that yesterday was the first time that it was made aware of the inquiry that was made of the Scottish Government on 23 June?
Yes, that is correct. As I made very clear to Mr Ross, when that inquiry was received, it was a query about a situation that a council wanted clarification on. Government officials worked through that and, when they realised the implications of it, which were not realised in June, they informed ministers of the situation.
We got there. It took a lot of teasing out from the minister, but we now have confirmation that, just yesterday, the Government found out that months of research had been done by its officials, dating back to 23 June.
That is troubling for me as a legislator who is being asked by the Government to trust it and to support its legislation, because even in the development of a piece of emergency legislation, the Government did not have all the details. Not just in the three-week period that it needed to notify the convener, in her role as Presiding Officer, and not just in the period when it was speaking about the issue with other parties, but right up to the point of the stage 1 debate, the Government did not know about it.
Government members on the back benches might now pause to think, “Is it right that it comes to the stage 1 debate before our ministers know the true timeframe of the issue?” I find that—
Will the member give way?
I was about to finish, but I will happily give way.
I do not know why Douglas Ross keeps digging this hole, because the reality is that, as I have explained clearly, the implications of the issue were realised only in August, and that is when ministers were informed. There was a dialogue with a council earlier about an issue that it was querying. The query came to the Scottish Government and it was treated as a routine query, because the implications of it were not realised. It was only when Government officials realised the implications of the issue that ministers were informed. That is why we are here today—to resolve the issue.
We are here today to solve a problem caused by the Government with its legislation—and officials. I am sure that some officials will be holding up their hands and saying, “We didn’t do the right thing here.” That is why we have to get to the bottom of the advice that the Government is getting.
I am now more troubled, during the debate on my amendments, about the advice that the Government is getting, because it turns out that pretty crucial advice came in on the same day as the stage 1 debate. I hope that that reinforces the need for these amendments and for full transparency. If the Government has nothing to hide and there is nothing more to reveal about the process of the flawed legislation being identified, the matter coming to the Government, then coming to the chamber and then being rectified, there is no reason not to support the amendments.
The ministers, who are both on the front bench right now, have, over the past two days, promised openness and transparency. They can deliver that by supporting these amendments. If ministers want the issue to go away, it will go away by their being open and transparent and providing that information. I hope that they will support the amendments in my name.
I rise as a member of this Parliament but also as the convener of its Public Audit Committee. Mr Hoy is a former member of the Public Audit Committee, so he knows, and he should know, that it is not competent, it is not constitutional and it is not democratic for either Parliament or, worse, Government to instruct the Auditor General for Scotland to conduct a review. Look at the language in amendment 13. It states:
“The Auditor General must carry out a review”
and uses the language:
“The Auditor General must, within 12 months”.
No—that is not competent. We had it recently with Fergus Ewing, a former cabinet secretary, who called on the Scottish Government to instruct the Auditor General for Scotland to carry out an inquiry into the ScotWind licensing round. Now, he may do that, but we are on a very slippery slope if the Government or even Parliament tells the Auditor General what he can and cannot investigate and what he should or should not investigate. I think we need to vote down amendment 13, and it should not see the light of day again.
I call the minister.
A number of issues have been raised, but I will start with the contribution from Richard Leonard, who put it better than I could with regard to the amendment calling for action on the part of the Auditor General. It is not the role of Government to require the Auditor General to do specific work. Section 69(4) of the Scotland Act 1998 states:
“The Auditor General for Scotland shall not, in the exercise of any of his functions, be subject to the direction or control of any member of the Scottish Government or of the Parliament.”
It would therefore not be our place to force the Auditor General, who is independent of Government, to investigate the matter. Of course, he may choose to do so if he sees fit.
That issue speaks to the quality of the amendments that have been lodged by the Conservatives at this stage. As Richard Leonard clearly indicated, amendment 13 is very much not competent.
With regard to the other points that have been made, I have highlighted that the timeline of what happened has been lodged with SPICe, so that everyone is aware of that. The Government, of course, apologises for the situation that we are in. The issue with the legislation was missed by Scottish Government lawyers, by parliamentary lawyers, by councils, by experts in NDR legislation, by academics and by ratepayers. Of course, there was an issue with the legislation and there should not have been, but we must bear in mind the complexity of NDR legislation. Some of it dates from 1854, and the many acts and more than 150 SSIs that have been passed in the period since then are all relevant to the legislation that we are discussing. Work was done, but, unfortunately, that specific piece of 1956 legislation was not covered. We apologise for that.
On Douglas Ross’s offer not to move his amendments, as indicated yesterday, the Government is happy and content to be fully transparent about what happened with regard to the development of the situation over that period of time. As I said, ministers were first informed of the situation on 21 August. Given the legal checks that needed to be carried out in order to introduce the legislation, and given the implications of it not being passed in good order, the Government has moved at pace to ensure that all aspects of the issue are considered and that robust legislation is introduced.
To answer Douglas Ross’s question, I say that we are content to be fully transparent on the communications that happened around the legislation and the dates in that regard.
I am very pleased with the positive response from the minister. Can he go a little further and confirm that he will vote for amendments 11 and 12?
I must have misheard. I will check the record, because I thought that Douglas Ross said that he made an offer that we could not refuse, which was that, if we were able to commit to being fully transparent, as we have been and were yesterday, he would not move amendments 11 and 12. However, as I said, maybe I misheard that.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Oh, come on.
I will take the intervention.
Get on with it.
Sorry, if members need to rush away home or something—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Ross.
Sorry, convener, I could not hear you.
Do continue, Mr Ross.
I asked the minister whether he could give a commitment to publish all that information. Amendments 11 and 12 would commit the Government to publish that information the day after the bill is enacted. Is that the timeframe to which the minister is working? Will all of that information therefore be published tomorrow? If so, and if he can give that commitment, I will not move amendments 11 and 12. Alternatively, he could just support the amendments in my name.
That is really not what the member said. However, we will be fully transparent on the matter. I will not commit to doing that tomorrow, because we need to pull together quite a bit of documentation in that regard and make sure that we have released everything that is relevant. I am sure that, if there were only a partial release, the member would have something to say about that as well.
I will talk to the specific amendments. On amendment 7, it would not be appropriate to impose a timeframe within which ministers must notify Parliament if an error is noticed in the law, because without fully exploring any such error and considering solutions, any such requirement could cause the public purse expense and create unnecessary disruption. Such issues have to be treated on a case-by-case basis.
I have already spoken to amendments 11 to 13. The points that Martin Whitfield made in that regard are pertinent, and I thank him for those. Although Douglas Ross is rightly interested, as are members more generally, in understanding the timeline and what happened when, legislation is not the correct vehicle for making provision in that respect. Therefore, I ask members to resist all the amendments in the group.
I invite Craig Hoy to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 7.
Mr Ross is absolutely right: this is a question of transparency and accountability, and of ensuring that the Parliament does not pass deficient or incompetent legislation. On that basis, I take on board what has been said by the convener of the Public Audit Committee and will not seek to move amendment 13. However, I will seek to relodge it at the next stage, when we will invite the Auditor General to carry out the important review for which the amendment would provide.
This shows why legislation should not be made in haste or at speed. Perhaps ministers could learn a lesson from this very quick climbdown.
That issue was raised yesterday. On one hand, Conservative members intervene to tell us that we should have moved faster and ask why it took so long to do things, and, on the other, they complain because we are moving at pace. I wish that they would get their story straight.
No—the issue here is about using an emergency procedure for something that the minister’s officials have known about since June. This is not an emergency. The Government has chosen to use the mechanism of an emergency bill in order to try to cover its tracks.
I will not move amendment 13, which I hope that the Presiding Officer will allow us to relodge at stage 3, but I will press amendment 7.
On a point of order, convener. I might have missed this—I do not think that I did—but I do not think that the minister addressed amendment 8. Can I assume that that means that he will support amendment 8?
That is obviously not a point of order. I do not know whether the minister wishes to respond.
I have already said that we urge members to resist all the amendments in the group, including amendment 8.
The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer]
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra]
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Lorna Slater]
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor]
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 25, Against 85, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 7 disagreed to.
Amendment 8 moved—[Stephen Kerr].
The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer]
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra]
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Lorna Slater]
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor]
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 26, Against 86, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 8 disagreed to.
15:15
We move to the next group, which is entitled “Reporting on impact on rate payers and unoccupied properties etc”. Amendment 9, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is grouped with amendment 10.
I suspect that I was right in saying that the only way that we are going to get the transparency that we are looking for is if it is in the bill.
I have two amendments in this group. Together, they speak to the most basic requirements of making good law, which are providing accurate information and having an accountable Government.
Amendment 9 would require ministers, within three months of royal assent, to lay before the Parliament a statement
“setting out ... the number of unoccupied lands and heritages on which non-domestic rates were levied, ... the total amount ... levied ... the number and value of enforcement surcharges levied, the number and value of sheriff officer fees”
charged and
“the number and value of ... refunds made”.
In the context of where we are, those are not academic details; they go to the very heart of the financial consequences of the Government’s mistake. Without that information, the Parliament is being asked—not for the first time—to legislate blind.
Let us be plain about why such an audit is essential. It is because the Government has a lamentable record of hiding, delaying and obstructing information whenever its own competence is in question. We have seen examples of that this afternoon. Amendment 9 is essential because the Parliament cannot rely on ministers to provide the clarity that we need to do our jobs unless they are compelled to do so. That is why I said, from a sedentary position, during the debate on the previous group of amendments, that putting those things on the face of the bill—[Interruption.] I am sorry to keep awake the member who is struggling and yawning; that is how the SNP approaches all of this. [Interruption.] They can mutter away all they like.
Do continue, Mr Kerr.
Amendment 9 is essential because the very existence of the bill is evidence of a pattern in which transparency is treated not as a duty but as an inconvenience. No responsible Government would expect the Parliament to accept retrospective legislation with a financial exposure running to hundreds of millions of pounds without full disclosure of who is affected, to what extent and at what cost, yet that is exactly what this Government expects.
Perhaps the Government could do with a dose of curiosity. It wants the Parliament to fix its mistake quickly, without too much scrutiny and with not many questions being asked—in fact, as few as possible—but we need to know the cost. We have to count the cost and know who has suffered the consequences. That is a requirement of transparent Government. This is not a competent Government.
Amendment 10 is equally important because it would require ministers, within 12 months of the act coming into force, to report back to the Parliament on how the act has operated in practice. Again, the information required would include
“the number of unoccupied lands and heritages”
that have been affected,
“the financial impact ... on the non-domestic rates pool”,
the implications for local authority relief schemes and any unintended consequences that have arisen. I argue that that would not be burdensome or radical; it reflects the minimum standard of responsible law making.
The responsibility and the fault absolutely lie with the Scottish Government. Interestingly, however, in respect of amendment 10, what lessons does the member think that the Parliament needs to learn about observation, consideration and the time that is given for analysing bills?
I think that Martin Whitfield, knowing the answer to his own question, has answered his question through the way in which he asked it. The answer is that we should be taking time over these matters and maximising the power of scrutiny. We certainly have much to learn in respect of how finance is handled. That has been much debated in the chamber—interestingly, that has usually been on Thursday afternoons, when too few colleagues have been here to enjoy the debate and gather from it—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Kerr. Do continue, Mr Kerr.
I know that listening is not a strong feature of SNP members, but I was referring to the many debates that we have had on Thursday afternoons in which we have been considering the effective working of our Parliament, particularly in relation to committee structures, how committees operate and how legislation is handled. An inquiry was recently held, I believe by the Finance and Public Administration Committee, on the nature of our finance bills, which threw up some very interesting evidence.
There are great and important lessons to be learned by this Parliament on how we balance our responsibilities, including when it comes to SNP back benchers’ loyalty to their front bench, which I respect, and their supporting of the advance of good governance by holding the Government to a standard and holding it to account. To answer Martin Whitfield’s question, I think that that is exactly what we take from this as a Parliament.
Does the member accept that the committees and the Parliament could have spent three, four or five times as long on the original bill but still not spotted the very technical and legal issue that we are addressing now?
It is all about how we arm our committees to scrutinise the legislation. If John Mason believes that we are not doing an adequate job on that—that is one of the lessons of this debate—we should be discussing, across parties and in a non-partisan way, how we make the Parliament and its committees more powerful. We should all have an interest in doing that.
I return to amendment 10, as I am sure that you would like me to do, convener. I think that it is particularly necessary, because the bill is retrospective, complex—which is the point that John Mason has just made to me—and constitutionally sensitive; we have already discussed, and I am sure that we will return to, the implications of the Scotland Act 1998 for Parliament’s competence to do what we are doing this afternoon.
The measure at issue alters tax liabilities for a period that has already passed. It affects businesses that have acted in good faith. It touches on local authority finances and exposes the public purse to potential liability on an extraordinary scale—it is more mountain than molehill. When the Parliament legislates retrospectively, it must also scrutinise retrospectively and learn the lessons. There are lessons on offer, as Martin Whitfield has indicated, and we should be willing to take them on board and to take the time that is necessary to properly absorb those lessons, because our first duty as a Parliament is to protect and stand up for the public interest.
It is important that we remember how and why we got here this afternoon, and why ministers need to be held to account for how they conducted themselves in relation to the measure and to the corrective instrument that they have brought before us.
Given the history of the SNP in government, it would be reckless for the Parliament to grant ministers that level of retrospective authority without requiring structured follow-up. That is what amendment 10 is all about. It would create the discipline that is necessary. It would force ministers to account for financial consequences and the effects on ratepayers, businesses and councils. It would also force them to identify unintended consequences so that the Parliament could act.
I do not think that a one-year review would be punitive. It would be a safeguard that preserved the parliamentary control and scrutiny that we are speaking about and would ensure that ministers remained accountable for the operation of the law that they are asking us to pass, and that the failures that brought us to this point could not repeat themselves, unexamined and unreported.
If ministers believe that their explanations for all of that are credible—an idea that has been exposed today by my friend Douglas Ross talking about the timelines involved—they should actually welcome having that level of scrutiny in the bill. They should see it as a commitment to transparency and accountable Government and as a way of maintaining or, I would argue, restoring public trust in how we conduct our affairs in this place. They should welcome the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to transparency and accountability. If ministers believe that the extraordinary retrospective powers that they seek are justified, they should be willing to account openly for the consequences.
For all those reasons, I urge Parliament to support amendments 9 and 10.
I move amendment 9.
On the point about the so-called rushing of legislation, the member no doubt knows that the bill that led to the original legislation took seven months from introduction to passing stage 3, so I would argue that plenty of time was allowed for the bill and for consideration of the other issues.
Amendment 9 would require ministers to report on the number of unoccupied properties on which non-domestic rates are levied, which would require local authorities to visit up to 250,000 properties to check whether they were, indeed, unoccupied. That is not a realistic administrative burden, and I am surprised that Mr Kerr has lodged such an amendment when he is usually an advocate of having a lean, streamlined, focused Government that is conscious of administrative and bureaucratic burdens. That burden is not a realistic one to put on councils, so I urge members not to agree to amendment 9.
Amendment 10, which would require ministers to
“undertake a review of the operation of the Act”,
does not seem necessary. We keep all our non-domestic rates policies under review. Furthermore, subsection (3) of the section that amendment 10 seeks to insert could not be complied with without a huge administrative cost to local government, for which it simply is not resourced. We would not allocate resources to such a task because it would not, to my mind, deliver value for taxpayers’ money.
On that basis, I urge members not to support amendments 9 and 10.
I am not entirely surprised by Ivan McKee’s response, although I think it is wrong for him to say that my amendments are not necessary. We spoke earlier about post-legislative scrutiny. One aspect that is supposed to set this Parliament apart is our commitment to post-legislative scrutiny, but not much of that is done.
Has the member done any assessment of how much resource councils would require to be able to assess the status of those 250,000 properties?
We would like to have had longer in order to take a more considered approach to the bill. On that basis, we might have been able to consult more widely, gather more information and give ourselves a broader look at an issue that clearly requires post-legislative scrutiny.
When we talk about retrospective legislation, as we are doing today, we should surely build in the additional particular safeguards that are in amendment 10.
I appeal to colleagues across the chamber, in the sense that it is our responsibility, as the Parliament, to hold the Government to account. Given the current Government’s record in office, surely it is in the interest of SNP members in particular to want to see their Government’s performance—poor as it is—improve. I double-underline that the bill is retrospective legislation, so surely it merits special consideration in a post-legislative scrutiny sense.
Amendment 10 is not particularly burdensome, and together with amendment 9 it would provide for a bare minimum of accountability. If ministers are confident in their handling of this matter, they would surely welcome a fresh look at it 12 months down the line. However, unfortunately, as is the pattern and expectation—as I said earlier, I am not surprised by the minister’s response—they resist transparency. In my view, that only underlines how much my amendments 9 and 10 are required.
I press amendment 9.
15:30
The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, convener. I have a technical problem with the voting app. I would have voted no.
Thank you, Ms Wishart. We will ensure that that is recorded.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O'Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Proxy vote cast by Lorna Slater
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 25, Against 85, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 9 disagreed to.
Amendment 10 moved—[Stephen Kerr].
The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O'Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Proxy vote cast by Lorna Slater
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 25, Against 84, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 10 disagreed to.
Amendment 11 moved—[Douglas Ross].
The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O'Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Proxy vote cast by Lorna Slater
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 25, Against 85, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 11 disagreed to.
Amendment 12 moved—[Douglas Ross].
The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O'Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Proxy vote cast by Lorna Slater
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 25, Against 85, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 12 disagreed to.
Amendment 13 not moved.
Before section 2
We move to the next group, which is entitled “Statement on compatibility with Scotland Act”. Amendment 14, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is the only amendment in the group.
I do not intend to try to emulate the remarks made to the chamber yesterday evening by my learned friend Murdo Fraser, who set out clearly the concerns of some members and some people outside the chamber about the Parliament’s competence to legislate in an area that might come into direct contravention with the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998.
Amendment 14 asks ministers—and it is a simple ask—to do something that a responsible Government should regard as a first obligation, especially given the speed at which we are now considering this particular instrument. The amendment would require the Scottish Government to set out clearly and transparently its assessment of this legislation’s compatibility with the 1998 act. It would require the Government to do something that no Government particularly likes to do but is occasionally required to do—indeed, there is precedent in this and other Parliaments—for the purposes of scrutiny, transparency and accountability: that is, make such legal advice known to the Parliament.
As articulated, Stephen Kerr’s amendment merely seems to seek a statement. However, in the submission that you have just made, you are suggesting that there would have to be additional evidence behind that statement. What do you think the force would be if the Scottish Government simply said that the legislation complied with the 1998 act?
Speak through the chair, please.
I am addressing the issue in the context of the additional information that would clarify the situation—namely, the legal advice. However, Martin Whitfield is right that the amendment calls for a statement.
Under my amendment 14, the Government should be prepared to make such a statement once some time has passed and there has been consideration by the Scottish Government and the wider judicial system. I do not think that there is anything intrusive or burdensome about what I am seeking; it is in response to the genuinely and thoroughly argued position that Murdo Fraser presented to the Parliament last night.
We are talking about matters that relate to the statutory limits of devolved competence. As a devolved Parliament, we are—rightly—required to operate within, and comply with, the conditions that define and constrain that devolved power, which are laid out in the 1998 act. In recent years, there have been repeated examples of legislation being introduced without proper regard for those limits. Sometimes, those pieces of legislation have been a performative act on the part of this Government in order to create constitutional rammies.
The 1998 act is not an optional reference text—it is the legal foundation on which this Parliament rests. It defines what we do and, just as important, what we cannot do. In respect of the competence of the Parliament, the act is very clear.
So, when ministers introduce legislation that pushes at the boundaries of that constitutional propriety, or which breaches them—as we have seen with the SNP Government time and again—the costs, which run into the tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds, inevitably fall on the public. In this case, they fall on councils and businesses. They have an undermining effect on this Parliament’s authority; indeed, the Parliament has a reputation, particularly in the past few years, for passing flawed legislation.
We have to live with the consequences of the decisions that we are making now, and which we have made in relation to other bills. We have seen bills and acts of this Parliament struck down by the courts. We have seen legislation delayed, redrafted or sometimes completely abandoned by ministers who—in my view and, I am sure, in the view of others—have been motivated more by political grievance than by good governance and who have often been prepared to stand up, stare in the face of legal reality and deny its existence. We have seen the Government treat those statutory limits exactly how it treats every other safeguard on its power—that is, without seriousness.
It brings us back to the discussion about the power of this Parliament to hold the executive to account. Without any parliamentary discipline to speak of, the Government will inevitably breach the respect that should exist between the executive and the Parliament.
Amendment 14 insists on a different standard. When, as in this instance, ministers legislate retrospectively, and when they interact with the complexities and technical aspects of the issues that we are discussing, it has in the minds of many—including Murdo Fraser, who said as much yesterday evening—an impact on section 29 of the 1998 act, and it is important that the Government responds to those concerns. That is not a burden; it is a safeguard, and it is necessary, because the Government’s track record shows that it cannot be relied on to observe those safeguards voluntarily in the use of its own powers.
15:45The amendment is not ideological in any way. It is a constitutional amendment. It strengthens Parliament’s hand. That is exactly what we are here to do in holding the executive to account. It improves scrutiny, and it protects the integrity of devolution. [Interruption.] Someone is laughing at the idea of protecting the integrity of devolution, but it is an important part of what we do, because it obliges ministers to take responsibility for the legal consequences of the choices that they make. In my view, that is the essence of good government.
Amendment 14 restores the basic discipline of constitutional responsibility. It is reasonable and proportionate in this case, because, in the opinion of some legal minds, we are dealing with retrospective legislation that bumps up against the interpretation of the 1998 act. I urge members to support it.
I move amendment 14.
I am not quite sure of the argument that Stephen Kerr is making. I am not quite sure whether it is an argument about the bill being emergency legislation, which is a question of process. I objected previously to certain legislation being treated as emergency legislation when I was convener of the Justice Committee.
I am also not sure whether his argument is about the bill’s retrospectivity, which is rare but has happened in the Parliament before. Again, it is for committees and the Parliament to object to that.
I am concerned about the wording of Stephen Kerr’s amendment, which says:
“The Scottish Ministers must, within 2 months of Royal Assent, publish and lay before the Scottish Parliament a statement setting out whether, in their opinion”—
that is, the Government’s opinion—
“this Act is compatible with the Scotland Act 1998.”
It is my understanding, convener—you are in that role just now rather than that of Presiding Officer—that it is for the Presiding Officer to determine whether a bill is within the legislative competence of the Parliament by issuing a certificate as to its competence or otherwise under section 31 of the 1998 act. That is not a guarantee—as we know, it is not always guaranteed that even the best legislation in the world will not be open to challenge at some point—but it means that, when it is introduced, the bill already has a certificate from the Presiding Officer.
The point of amendment 14 is that, as I hope Ms Grahame accepts, there is some question whether the bill is compatible with the 1998 act. That question is not necessarily in the minds of parliamentary authorities—I am not disputing their judgment on the matter—but outside the Parliament, and perhaps among some of the legal minds in it, there are concerns that this piece of retrospective legislation is contrary to the 1998 act.
As I have already said, this is not the first piece of retrospective legislation that we have had in the Parliament, and that previous legislation was not challenged.
The point that I am making is that Mr Kerr is challenging the Presiding Officer’s role. It is for the Presiding Officer to decide whether a bill as introduced is within the legislative competence of section 31 of the 1998 act. I would rather that the Presiding Officer made those judgments than a Government, because the Presiding Officer is objective and does it on behalf of the Parliament and its reputation. I would not want to find a Government of whatever hue making those decisions on my behalf.
I am taken aback that the amendment is even competent. However, I did not choose the amendments, as we know. In this process, it is the Presiding Officers who decide whether amendments are competent, so I am arguing with amendment 14 as lodged. I cannot see any advantage in supplanting the role of the Presiding Officer with a Government of whatever political hue.
There is not much more that I need to say, following Christine Grahame’s comments.
Amendment 14 would require Scottish ministers, within two months of royal assent, to publish and lay before the Scottish Parliament a statement setting out whether, in their opinion, the act is compatible with the Scotland Act 1998. The amendment is, of course, unnecessary. In introducing the bill, the Scottish Government made it clear that it considers the bill to be compatible with the 1998 act. An additional requirement for a statement after royal assent would add nothing to the processes that are already set out in that act and standing orders.
When introduced, all bills must be accompanied by a written statement signed by the Presiding Officer that indicates whether, in their view, the bill’s provisions are within the legislative competence of the Parliament. All bills are also accompanied by a written statement signed by the member introducing the bill that states that, in their view, the bill’s provisions are within the legislative competence of the Parliament. That statement is cleared by Scottish law officers. The 1998 act also provides for the UK or Scottish law officers, within four weeks of the passing of a bill, to refer that bill to the Supreme Court if they have any concerns or questions about its legislative competence.
Accordingly, there has already been and will be extensive and careful consideration of the legislative competence of the bill and its compatibility with the 1998 act, including consideration of its ECHR compatibility.
The minister and Christine Grahame have articulated very accurately why the Parliament places its trust in the Presiding Officer in respect of the 1998 act. However, on a slightly different point, does the minister agree that there is an obligation on the Scottish Government in that, if it becomes apparent after legislation has been passed that something in it is in dispute with that act, ministers would have to act on that? They could not stay silent on it.
I think that that would be the case.
It is ironic that an amendment that talks about compliance with the 1998 act cuts across the provisions in that act with regard to the process that I have just outlined. Accordingly, I urge members to resist amendment 14.
I think that my point has been made in the exchange between Martin Whitfield and Ivan McKee. All that amendment 14 says is that we are baking into the bill scrutiny of the compatibility of the legislation post its royal assent. I cannot see what there is to object to. I do not really understand the points that Christine Grahame made.
I am not challenging whether the minister or indeed the Presiding Officer considers that the bill is compatible with the Scotland Act 1998. I am sure that they do consider that. I am not asking them to justify that at this point, but I am bringing to their attention something that I feel that the minister is only too well aware of, which is that there will be people outside the Parliament who will, at this very moment, be challenging the legitimacy and competency of the Parliament passing this particular piece of retrospective legislation.
All that I am trying to do—I hesitate to say this, because I know what the response of some members in the chamber will be—is to be helpful by saying, “Here is the legislation that we are considering, and here is the baking in of us doing post-legislative scrutiny in the way that we say that we should do it in this place.”
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
I will take Alex Rowley’s intervention first, and then Keith Brown’s.
When a bill is passed, somebody could challenge it from outside but, as a member of this Parliament, I have always tended to think that, when the Presiding Officer says that it is legally competent, they must have taken legal advice, with the support being in place for them to do that. We seem to be running round in circles here. It may be that somebody who does not like a piece of legislation will challenge it, but our job is to take the advice that we get, and if we are told that a bill is legally competent, we would surely proceed on that basis.
I hope that, once the amendment is rejected, it will not be brought back at stage 3.
I give way to Keith Brown.
Will the member confirm his position, having had explained to him by Christine Grahame the fundamental tenet of this Parliament that the Presiding Officer and not the Government of the day decides whether something is compliant with the Scotland Act 1998? He should not have had to have that explained to him. It is a fundamental thing. You have been here for four years. You should know this stuff. Having had it explained to you by other members, do you still intend to try to effect a major change by transferring the power to the Government of the day from the Presiding Officer? Is that really your intention?
Always speak through the chair.
That was highly performative, frankly. [Interruption.] Well, it was. A lot of what he said—“Have you not been here for four and a half years? Do you not know this stuff?”—was uncalled for.
The point is that we say that a hallmark of the Parliament is attention to post-legislative scrutiny, but we are not very good at it—we are not very good at it at all. Therefore, by lodging an amendment to what could potentially be a legally contentious piece of legislation, I am trying to be helpful by saying, “Let us look at this two months down the line, in the light of what transpires.” I do not think that that is very controversial.
The member must not become more confused by talking about post-legislative scrutiny. That is not what this is about. This is about whether something is legislatively competent.
Let me take the member right back. When a bill is lodged, the certificate of competence comes from the Presiding Officer, and of course the bill can be amended at stage 2 and at stage 3. However, at stage 3, it is, again, up to the Presiding Officer to decide whether any proposed amendments are within the ambit of the bill. If they are not, they are not competent, so they are not lodged. When an amendment is lodged at stage 3, we are in the hands of the Presiding Officer and not a political Government, thankfully.
I was not saying anything about any of that stuff. A straw man argument is being built. I am talking about building into the legislation an additional step as a safeguard by expecting the Government to do its work and come back to the chamber. We should have a commitment to post-legislative scrutiny. We say that we do it, but we are not very good at it; I am pretty sure about that. However, I am not suggesting that we bypass the Presiding Officer.
By the way, to take the member’s point on board, if that is what is being suggested, I do not think that amendment 14 would have got this far because it would have been ruled out of order. The amendment is in order; it has been selected and approved to be part of this afternoon’s stage 2 debate.
As I said, my intention is to build in the scrutiny that this piece of legislation needs. It is not normal legislation. I think that we all understand that, right?
The intention of my amendment is to provide a baked-in, post-legislative look two months after the bill receives royal assent. I do not think that it is burdensome or unconstitutional. I do not think that any of the things that have been said about where it fits in are appropriate, because the amendment is here—it is on the page—and the Presiding Officer has approved it for debate.
I press amendment 14.
The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer]
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra]
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Lorna Slater]
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor]
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 24, Against 85, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 14 disagreed to.
Section 2—Ancillary provision
16:00
We move to regulations under section 2. Amendment 15, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is grouped with amendments 16 to 18.
This is my final contribution to stage 2 amendments. Amendments 15 and 16 give Parliament the option of imposing a time limit—a sunset clause—on the sweeping regulation-making power that ministers are seeking in the bill. Parliament should never hand ministers powers of the kind that are contained in section 2. Those powers allow ministers to reach back into previous financial years, rewrite the legal consequences of their own mistakes and modify primary legislation by regulation. If any Government is to be given powers of that exceptional scale, proper constitutional safeguards must follow as a matter of principle. That principle is simple. When Parliament grants exceptional powers, it must also set clear limits, demand clear justification and insist on clear accountability. That is the only honest way to legislate.
My amendments do nothing more than impose the discipline that the Government has repeatedly demonstrated that it will not impose on itself. The amendments say to ministers that they may use that extraordinary power, but only for a fixed period and for the sole purpose of correcting their error. Once that task is complete, the power expires. The extraordinary remains extraordinary.
We need to keep in mind why we have ended up where we have. We are dealing with retrospective correction through legislation. It may well be justified—the public finances could certainly not withstand a loss running into hundreds of millions—but the fact that we are even considering retrospective legislation should give every member pause. As Christine Grahame said, retrospection is rare. It is constitutionally sensitive to go back in time and reset law, so it must be tightly controlled.
Amendments 15 and 16 put Parliament back in control. They ensure that retrospective correction does not become a permanent executive habit. They ensure that the Government cannot convert an emergency fix into an on-going extension of ministerial authority. We have all, in this session, lived through just that happening.
Amendments 15 and 16 also reaffirm the basic constitutional truth that ministers govern only with the authority of this Parliament, not the other way round. On that basis, I urge members to support amendments 15 and 16.
I move amendment 15.
I note the time, so I will try to be as concise as possible.
Parliament has heard repeatedly about the strain that has been placed on businesses by business rates on unoccupied properties that they cannot sell or rent. All of us have probably had a constituent with such a case. In the past 72 hours, I have heard from several constituents who have been affected, some of whom have demolished buildings, rather than paying the tax on their properties. Paul Sweeney, rightly, raised the issue in respect of listed buildings, where the problem is particularly acute.
Given the scale of the error that we are now correcting and the fact that some businesses have been billed unlawfully, it is surely only right that those who bear that liability are properly consulted when further regulations are made by ministers. Therefore, amendment 17 simply requires ministers to consult those groups who are affected. That is a reasonable expectation after years of poor communication and months of withheld information, which has created confusion and concern in the industry. Future regulations should be informed—certainly not directed—by those who will be affected by them and, potentially, by increased costs. If the Government is committed to transparency and better policy making, it will support the amendment.
Amendment 18 removes wording that would give ministers far too much discretion to set aside parliamentary scrutiny and would ensure that all future changes and regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure. Those who sit on the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee have watched with concern the creeping use of skeleton legislation and delegated procedures for matters that should come to the Parliament.
Given its importance, the Parliament simply cannot allow loopholes or opportunities for ministers to seek to avoid scrutiny. We have already seen what happens when the Parliament is kept in the dark. Amendment 17 would simply ensure that ministers must follow the rules as written and not reinterpret the word “if”, which is in the bill, if it is convenient to do so. If ministers are serious about strengthening confidence in the bill, I hope that they will support my amendment and close the loophole. Therefore, I will move amendments 17 and 18.
Section 2 gives ministers regulation-making power to make any
“provision they consider appropriate for the purposes of, in connection with or for giving full effect to”
the bill.
Amendment 15 would mean that any regulation would be effective for a limited period of 12 months unless the Parliament resolved otherwise, and amendment 16 would remove those ancillary powers after 24 months. The purpose of the amendments is unclear, as they would severely restrict the ability to deal with any issues that would later arise and require use of the powers or regulations that have already been made. Therefore, the Government cannot accept those amendments and I urge members to oppose amendments 15 and 16.
In respect of amendment 18, which would require all regulations to be affirmative regulations, and amendment 17 on consultation, I acknowledge the importance of appropriate consultation and scrutiny when making any regulations. Therefore, the Government will accept amendments 17 and 18 in the name of Craig Hoy.
I support all the amendments in the name of Craig Hoy. In respect of my amendments, I believe that any responsible legislature would insist on those protections, and I think that any responsible Government would, frankly, welcome them. I press amendment 15.
The question is, that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer]
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra]
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Lorna Slater]
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor]
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 22, Against 83, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 15 disagreed to.
Amendment 16 moved—[Stephen Kerr].
The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, convener. I did not get to vote. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Kerr. I will ensure that that is recorded.
For
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer]
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra]
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Lorna Slater]
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor]
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 24, Against 84, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16 disagreed to.
Amendments 17 and 18 moved—[Craig Hoy]—and agreed to.
We move to the group on requirement for legislation. Amendment 19, in the name of Craig Hoy, is grouped with amendments 22 and 23.
I will try to be equally brief. It will have been no surprise to the Government that my Scottish Conservative colleagues and I have been making clear our concerns about the pace and handling of the bill. Section 2 gives ministers broad powers to make additional regulations, but the bill exists precisely because of a serious legislative error that went undetected and because Parliament was not told about it until months after officials became aware. In those circumstances, it would be wrong to hand ministers further latitude, so removing section 2 would ensure that any future changes must come back to the chamber for full scrutiny.
I hope that ministers will finally learn from their mistakes and embrace the transparency that agreeing to amendment 19 would ensure, in light of the legislation being wrong, being rushed and being open to legal challenge.
I will speak briefly to amendment 22. I repeat that we are opposed to the bill. Amendment 22 seeks to remove section 3, which is the commencement provision of the bill, because the Government has shown that it cannot be trusted with the timing of critical decisions. Ministers knew about the original defect months before Parliament was told, and they have chosen to introduce the bill in budget week, when the public’s attention is elsewhere and scrutiny in Parliament is inevitably constrained. The fact that we are sitting on a Thursday evening with a deadline ahead of us to consider this important legislation reinforces that point.
If the Government is serious about restoring confidence after such a serious failure, it should support amendment 22.
Does Craig Hoy recognise that the Conservative business manager sat in the Parliamentary Bureau meeting with other business managers and the Government and agreed to this timetable?
Yes, and since then, several major issues have come to light, including the fact that the Government is not entirely certain that the bill is legally competent and that it will not be in the courts within months, potentially putting £400 million of the public’s money on the line.
On amendment 23, I have been clear about our concerns about the pace and handling of the bill. If Parliament is to legislate responsibly, we must ensure that scrutiny is not sacrificed. Amendment 23 removes the short title. I accept that it is a technical provision, but in the context of such a serious legislative failure, even technical provisions matter. Removing the short title would not stop the bill entirely but would slow its finalisation and would require ministers to return to Parliament. That would be an important pause that would give Parliament time to scrutinise and give the Government time to ensure that the bill is, in fact, legally watertight. If the Government and the minister are serious about restoring confidence, they should recognise that a little more time and a little more scrutiny are not obstacles but necessities.
I hope that ministers will support amendment 23 and take the time to get this right.
I move amendment 19.
Craig Hoy’s amendments 19, 22 and 23 appear to be intended to prevent the bill from working properly. They seek to remove the ancillary power, the commencement provision and the bill’s short title. As such, they cannot be accepted, and I urge members to resist them.
I call Craig Hoy to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 19.
I will press all three amendments.
The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer]
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra]
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Lorna Slater]
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor]
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 24, Against 84, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 19 disagreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3—Commencement
16:15Amendments 20 and 21 not moved.
Amendment 22 moved—[Craig Hoy].
The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is now closed.
On a point of order, convener. My device did not connect. I would have voted no on my own part and on behalf of Paul O’Kane.
Thank you, Mr Marra. I will make sure that both of those votes are recorded.
For
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer]
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra]
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Lorna Slater]
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor]
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 25, Against 84, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 22 disagreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Section 4—Short title
Amendment 23 moved—[Craig Hoy].
The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer]
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra]
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Lorna Slater]
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor]
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 26, Against 84, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 23 disagreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On a point of order, convener. I may be misunderstanding this, and I apologise if that is the case, but were we meant to agree to sections 2 and 3?
Thank you for that point of order, Mr Mason. I can confirm that, having not agreed to amendments that would have removed those sections, they are deemed to have been passed.
Long title agreed to.
That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. I ask the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans and business managers to join the Presiding Officer in committee room 5 as soon as possible, to discuss timings and the deadline for lodging amendments at stage 3.
I suspend proceedings for 10 minutes to allow the Parliamentary Bureau discussion to take place, but I ask members to remain in the chamber for the duration. We will reconvene the meeting after the discussion and advise members on timescales.
16:19 Meeting suspended.
Following consultation with the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans and business managers, I confirm that the deadline by which to lodge stage 3 amendments is 16:45. I also confirm that business will resume at 16:45, with Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body question time.
I ask members to remove their cards from the voting consoles and to leave the chamber while the clerks prepare for stage 3 proceedings.
This meeting of the Committee of the Whole Parliament is now closed.
Meeting closed at 16:32.Previous
Committee of the Whole Parliament