Official Report 1247KB pdf
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 78A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of stage 3. 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.
Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
After section 1
Group 1 is on a requirement for the Scottish ministers to meet costs. Amendment 1, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is the only amendment in the group.
I lodged amendment 1 only at stage 3 because, I must confess, I thought that another member would have lodged it at stage 2. I apologise to the minister for the lateness of its lodging.
However, it became clear to me yesterday that there was still some confusion about what local authorities might have to face financially as a result of the Parliament’s previous decision and of the bill becoming an act in a few weeks’ time.
I am concerned that there might be legal challenges to the bill, the costs of which would have to be met by the Scottish Government. However, there might then be consequential challenges from one of the 32 local authorities, which would mean that resources from that council would be used either on those challenges or on other aspects of the bill’s administration. As we are all aware, local authorities the length and breadth of the country are short of money and are struggling to provide the most basic services that we require. It would be unjust and unfair for such an authority to have to pick up a bill for something that was not its fault. In fact, if it were not for a local authority pointing out the mistake in August, we would be no further forward today.
Before I start, I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and to members for my lateness in arriving for an earlier matter.
Does the member agree that it is interesting that this provision did not appear in the initial draft of the bill, which might be unusual, and that neither was there a clear and categorical assurance from the Scottish Government in the bill paperwork that we received that it would accept responsibility for councils’ financial indebtedness?
I absolutely agree with the member; that is a helpful intervention. What I am looking for tonight—which the minister did not give yesterday, when I raised the issue when he was answering questions—is some assurance that the Government will meet the reasonable costs of a local authority if it incurs extra costs as a result of the bill becoming legislation.
A bit like Mr Ross, I am seeking a guarantee from the minister—if he can give it. I do not think that the provision needs to be in the bill. However, local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities need to know from the Parliament—and, in particular, from the Government—that they will not be in financial difficulty due to any administration costs as a result of the decision that is made tonight.
I move amendment 1.
I thank Mr Balfour for lodging his amendment. It addresses a crucial question that remains unanswered following the stage 1 debate.
Local authorities have a strange and unique role in this situation. They are the collection agents and have been collecting the money but, through no fault of their own, have had no legal basis for doing so under the legislation that was passed in the chamber. Like Mr Balfour, I seek an assurance from the Government that it will pick up the costs. There is the potential for a legal challenge on the basis that a local authority was acting without authority as the collecting agent. I would like assurances from the Government that local authority budgets will not be impacted by a mistake that was made by the Government.
I offer Mr Balfour the support of the Scottish Conservatives. We also asked the minister that question yesterday. I implore Mr Balfour to press his amendment. I am not casting any aspersions on the minister, but I think that getting the provision in the bill, rather than having an assurance in the Official Report, would probably be the soundest way to guarantee that councils are not out of pocket.
We do not know where the bill will end up regarding court action, and it is, as Mr Griffin said, very likely that, if there is one single case against the Scottish Government, there could be consequential action against councils. That could be very costly, and it would be good to make sure that the assurance is in the bill.
If a proper assurance is given, would it not be more reasonable to rely on that assurance, given that, if it appears in the bill and the bill falls in the future, as you suggest it might, there will be no assurance?
I suspect that the bill will pass. We do not want it to pass, but I suspect that it will. Perhaps we will have the double guarantee of the minister’s word and the guarantee being in the bill. We will be supporting Mr Balfour this evening.
I thank Jeremy Balfour for raising that important matter. The Government fully recognises its significance, and we are very sympathetic to the challenges that it raises for local government. We have been closely engaging with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in order to work together to resolve the matter. Members in the chamber, Jeremy Balfour and everyone else can rest assured that we will continue to work very closely with local government to recognise the challenges that it faces, to understand the implications of those challenges and to ensure that we can resolve them.
We have recently agreed a fiscal framework with local government, which sets out a process for open and honest debate on financial costs and pressures. That, along with the budget process, represents the most appropriate vehicle for discussing challenges of that nature—to which, as I have indicated, the Government is very sympathetic—rather than primary legislation.
The scope of the amendment has been far too broadly defined. We have much respect for local government, and I feel confident that it will deal with the process as effectively as possible.
I hope that COSLA can take the assurance that the minister has articulated. Does the minister appreciate the potential for unforeseen circumstances, particularly in cases where a council is currently involved in seeking payment that has not been made, and that such circumstances potentially allow for an additional argument to be made that will have to be dealt with? The Government is offering its support to investigate the costs fairly and reasonably, and that is the sort of area to which it should be extending its thinking and support.
Martin Whitfield makes a fair point. Such situations are in train, and we absolutely recognise that and the complications that could arise from the process that we are going through this afternoon. The Government is fully committed to working with COSLA and councils where such complications arise in order to be able to support them in resolving the matter in a way that works for everyone. Unfortunately, for the reasons that I have outlined, the Government cannot support the amendment, but I have clearly indicated to the chamber its position on the broader issue.
I call Jeremy Balfour to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 1.
I did not hear a guarantee from the minister. I am happy to go back and read the Official Report, but I think that what I heard from the minister was very good political spin. I heard words to the effect of, “We will work with COSLA. We are open to this idea.” However, I did not hear any form of guarantee that local authorities will be compensated, by either this Government or a future Government, if they have to bear the costs. I am happy to talk for only 10 more seconds in order to let the minister intervene. Will the minister give a guarantee that, if any local authority has extra costs because of having to do work following the bill’s enactment, they will be compensated by the Scottish Government for meeting those costs—yes or no?
Jeremy Balfour will understand that I cannot stand here and give unlimited guarantees on an issue. We cannot do that, but I can absolutely commit that we will work with councils and COSLA to make sure that we are able to support them with regard to any cost that arises as a consequence of the issue. Mr Balfour will understand that I am not in a position to give, on behalf of the Government, unlimited guarantees on that matter. I hope that he will take it in good faith that our intent is to recognise the challenges that the bill presents to councils and to support them as they work through those challenges.
I say to the minister that I am afraid that that does not go far enough. I think that anyone who makes a mess should tidy it up. The Scottish Government made this mess. To me, leaving it to a third party to tidy up seems irresponsible.
I will, therefore, press amendment 1.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. As this is the first division of stage 3, I will suspend the meeting for around five minutes to allow members to access the voting system.
17:42 Meeting suspended.
We move to the vote on amendment 1. Members should cast their votes now.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no, but I could not connect.
Thank you, Mr MacDonald. We will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes. It is not clear whether my vote has been lodged.
I can confirm that your vote has been recorded, Ms Boyack.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted no.
Thank you, Dr Allan. We will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Bibby.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms Dowey.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
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)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer]
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Lorna Slater]
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)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 47, Against 63, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
We move to group 2, on an independent review by the Auditor General for Scotland. Amendment 2, in the name of Craig Hoy, is the only amendment in the group.
I believe that, if Parliament and the public are to learn anything from this failure, an independent review remains essential. At stage 2, I proposed a mandatory review by the Auditor General. I thank Richard Leonard for pointing out that my amendment was deficient, and I apologise to Stephen Boyle, the Auditor General, for the nature of it.
However, I still believe that a review by the Auditor General would be an important part of learning lessons and of ensuring that the same thing does not occur again. So, here I am with a revised amendment that removes any compulsory element, but which still enables and invites the Auditor General to examine what went wrong, whether internal controls were adequate, how information was communicated to ministers and whether action was taken promptly enough, given that £400 million of taxpayers’ money is potentially on the line.
I believe that this revised amendment is proportionate and workable. It respects the Auditor General’s independence while ensuring that Parliament can, in time, receive an objective account of the failures that led to the bill. It also allows the bill to proceed as the Government intends, as there is no reasonable basis on which to oppose it. I would not want the Government to give any impression that it has something to hide, and therefore I look forward to its support for the revised amendment.
I move amendment 2.
Let me say at stage 3 what I said at stage 2: it is not right, it is not constitutional, it is not competent and it is not democratic to attempt to write into legislation—into a law that could be passed by this Parliament, and which could be supported by the Government of the day in this Parliament—a call for, even if it is no longer an instruction to, the Auditor General to carry out a review or an examination of this or that event. That should not be on the face of a bill of this Parliament.
That is for the Auditor General to decide. He is rightly independent. He is not subject to the control of any member of the Scottish Government or Parliament, or of the Scottish Government or this Parliament collectively, and neither should he be.
Mr Hoy is very proficient at issuing press releases. He can issue a press release making this call. But it would be very dangerous; it would be a bad precedent; it would be a slippery slope; it would compromise the checks and balances of our democracy; and it would compromise the independence of the Auditor General, who must be allowed to act without fear or favour, if Parliament or Government told the Auditor General what he can and cannot audit, and what he should and should not audit, and the scope of any such audit, and put such a gesture on the face of a bill.
Finally, we have heard a lot from the Conservatives in the past 24 hours about legal challenges to this legislation—about court cases and court action. If this amendment were inserted, there would be a legal challenge to this legislation, because it is a clear breach of section 69(4) of the Scotland Act 1998. For the record, let me remind Mr Hoy what that says:
“The Auditor General for Scotland shall not, in the exercise of any”
—of any—of his duties and
“functions, be subject to the direction or control of any member of the Scottish Government or of the Parliament.”
So, let us vote this amendment down.
Once again, I have to thank Richard Leonard for his contribution. Frankly, if it does not lead to his being at least nominated for debater of the year at next year’s Scottish politician of the year awards, I, for one, shall be shocked and surprised. His speech was a tour de force, laying out clearly and strongly the principles that underline that hugely important part of the way in which we operate in the chamber, and I am very grateful to him for that.
Amendment 2 states:
“The Auditor General for Scotland may carry out a review of the circumstances”.
Of course, that is a statement of fact; the Auditor General may indeed choose to carry out a review, and may choose not to carry out a review. However, the important point—as Richard Leonard articulated so strongly—is that it is not for the Parliament or the Government to indicate what the Auditor General may or may not, or should or should not, do. I therefore urge all members not to support the amendment.
I call Craig Hoy to wind up and say whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 2.
I like and respect Richard Leonard, but I think that his interpretation of the amendment is wrong—
Members: No.
It is not ordering the Auditor General to do anything—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Hoy.
It is simply showing, as was pointed out, that there is an option for the Auditor General to investigate what I think could potentially be a significant sum of public money that is put on the line.
I hear what Mr Hoy is saying, but what he is trying to do is put an amendment on the face of this legislation. That is completely different from offering an opinion or putting out a press release. Does he not understand the step that that would represent, and the line that that would cross, if it were to be accepted and voted for by this Parliament?
I refer back to some of the remarks made by Douglas Ross earlier. The emergency nature of the legislation—
Members: Where is he?
Let us hear Mr Hoy.
That is a matter for Mr Ross.
The emergency nature of the legislation is such that I think that we are taking what could be perceived to be unconventional routes to try to achieve transparency, and therefore I will press amendment 2.
The question is, that amendment 2 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)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
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)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
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)
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)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
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)
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)
The result of the division is: For 24, Against 86, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
That ends the consideration of amendments.
As members will be aware, I am required under standing orders to decide whether, in my view, any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In this case, in my view, no provision of the Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.
Before we move to the debate, I call Shona Robison to signify Crown consent to the bill.
For the purposes of rule 9.11 of standing orders, I advise the Parliament that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place his prerogative and interests, in so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill.
Previous
Urgent Question