High Hedges (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
We now move early to the next item of business, which is stage 3 proceedings on the High Hedges (Scotland) Bill.
In dealing with amendments, members should have before them the bill as amended at stage 2, which is SP bill 16A; the marshalled list, which is SP bill 16A-ML; and the list of groupings, which is SP bill 16A-G.
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 the debate.
Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group.
Section 1—Meaning of “high hedge”
Amendment 5, in the name of Anne McTaggart, is in a group on its own.
I am pleased to begin the debate by speaking to my amendment 5. The amendment seeks to achieve the same effect as one that I proposed at stage 2 at the Local Government and Regeneration Committee and later withdrew on the strength of an undertaking from the minister that he would reconsider the issue in detail.
Amendment 5 seeks to expand the definition of a high hedge so that the bill will not be unnecessarily restrictive and will be able to offer remedies to those who suffer from high hedge disputes irrespective of the type of hedge or nuisance vegetation concerned.
The current definition of
“a row of 2 or more evergreen or semi-evergreen trees or shrubs”
in section 1(1)(a) is unnecessarily restrictive, and I am concerned that the exclusion of deciduous species will leave those involved in some of the longest-standing disputes without resolutions to the problems that they face.
Therefore, my amendment seeks to amend that provision by removing “evergreen or semi-evergreen” altogether and changing the definition of a high hedge to simply “a row of 2 or more trees or shrubs”. That approach will enable the inclusion of deciduous species by default, as it will exclude no species of shrub, tree or hedge from the bill. That means that home owners who suffer from high hedge disputes would be more likely to achieve successful resolution to neighbour disputes and would not be restricted from achieving such an outcome as a result of a subtle technicality.
I move amendment 5.
As Anne McTaggart knows, we have had a long discussion about this matter. We have been up hill and down dale trying to find a way to get “deciduous” into the bill. The simplest thing is to delete everything else and make the bill refer to shrubs or trees in groups of two or more. It seems frivolous, but it is not really.
I remember saying at stage 1 that I felt an amendment coming on. Anne McTaggart obviously felt it coming on faster. That is not a problem.
In our discussions at stage 2, it was mentioned that, in certain parts of the country, shrubs or trees that we might say are deciduous simply are not. In many parts of Scotland, beech trees retain their leaves. A thick beech hedge can be impenetrable to light and interfere with reasonable living next door.
Sometimes in life, but not often, the solution is simple. Amendment 5 is one such case. I am delighted to support it because, if we leave “evergreen or semi-evergreen” in the bill, mischievous people could simply plant—we know that sometimes it is vindictive—a deciduous hedge that does not do what the seed packet says it is supposed to do and does not drop its leaves at all.
I am happy to support—and I hope that the member in charge and the minister will support—this simple but important amendment.
I am glad that the amendment has been put in front of us. We debated the issue at stage 1 and again at stage 2. My sense is that we could address it today or wait another five years. It is clear that, if we do not agree to the amendment, some of the deepest conflicts will remain. This is our opportunity to put in place a rigorous framework and ensure that things are done coherently.
I strongly support the amendment that Anne McTaggart has moved. It will not keep everybody happy, because high hedge disputes tend to be of long standing and involve deeply held views, but it will provide a resolution process. That is what the amendment is about and I hope that the minister will be able to support it.
The discussion at stage 1 and stage 2 was good. If the amendment was agreed to, it would strengthen the bill. Of course we would have to review it over time, but it is better to make the change at this stage rather than come back in five years’ time, wishing that we had done it and having to allocate more parliamentary time to the matter.
I support the amendment.
The question of whether we should include deciduous trees in the bill was discussed at length in the committee. Scothedge presented compelling evidence for including them in the bill. In fact, it suggested that one in five cases in which quality of life and enjoyment of property were affected involved deciduous trees and that the definition should therefore be amended to include them in their own right. Equally, concerns were expressed by other organisations.
The issue is complex. However, having considered all the issues at length, the Scottish Conservatives are minded to support Anne McTaggart’s amendment.
15:00
I have a couple of comments to make.
I welcome Anne McTaggart’s amendment and am delighted that I dissented at stage 1 to keep the item on the agenda so that we could discuss it further at stage 2 and today.
I have a question that I hope that Anne McTaggart will be able to answer in summing up. Can she provide any information about an increase in cases that might be covered by the amendment so that, when we discuss issues with our constituents after today, we can perhaps provide a bit more clarity on the cases that they have?
I apologise for coming to the chamber a wee bit late for the debate, given the early start.
That apology is noted.
As a result, I may have missed something in Anne McTaggart’s initial comments. If she has covered this matter already, I hope that she will be able to reprise what she said in her closing remarks.
The Scottish Wildlife Trust and the RSPB have given evidence and argued against the amendment, particularly in relation to the possible impact on biodiversity. A constituent has written:
“Urban biodiversity is increasingly important both for birds and pollinators many of whom are suffering serious decline. Green corridors through cities can be critical and large trees are essential for that to be viable for many species.”
Will Anne McTaggart respond to those criticisms from that constituent and from the two non-governmental organisations that gave evidence?
Anne McTaggart’s amendment 5 reflects the amendment that she lodged at stage 2, and it seeks to widen the bill’s definition of a high hedge to include all types of trees and shrubs by removing the words “evergreen or semi-evergreen” from section 1.
At stage 1, I said that the Government had quite a relaxed view of the definition in the bill and that it would listen to what members think is the appropriate way forward, but I made it clear that I would want to consult local government if we were to propose changing the definition substantially.
I therefore wrote to local authorities at stage 2 to seek their views on the potential impact of widening the definition of a high hedge in the ways proposed. I remain grateful to Anne McTaggart for agreeing to withdraw her amendment at stage 2 to enable the Government to consider the responses from local authorities on the proposed change before reaching a decision on the issue.
I have received a total of 18 responses from local authorities. There was a broad mix of views. One council welcomed the amendments and another council agreed that they should be made. A further council had no issues with them, and two councils had no comments. The remaining councils raised objections to them.
Those objections included concerns that the amendments would capture field hedgerows; concerns about the potential impacts on wildlife and the appearances of towns; and concerns that decisions would be more difficult, time consuming and costly to make. Some of those concerns also reflected representations that I have received from the Scottish Wildlife Trust and RSPB Scotland regarding the potential impact on biodiversity of widening the definition.
I have discussed those issues with Mark McDonald and considered how those concerns can best be addressed. I think that the key is to ensure that the Government’s guidance to local authorities makes it clear how those considerations should be taken into account in reaching decisions on high hedges, and I am satisfied that the bill will enable that to happen.
Will the minister reflect on the biodiversity arguments as well as those that he has listed? Will biodiversity specifically be considered in guidance?
I am sure that that is a reasonable request and that those arguments can be considered when guidance is produced and issued in due course.
I have every confidence that local authorities will use the guidance appropriately and will be able to take proper account of all the concerns in reaching their decisions. I know that the first step in that process was taken on Monday this week, when representatives of local authorities across Scotland attended a meeting with Government officials in Edinburgh to discuss the implementation of the legislation.
I have confirmed to Mark McDonald that the Government would welcome the participation of the Scottish Wildlife Trust and RSPB Scotland in future meetings on the development of the guidance to ensure that their concerns are addressed. I am also content that the bill provides that local authorities can recover the costs associated with high hedges, although I am happy to keep that under review as part of the Government’s continuing dialogue with local authorities on the issue.
I can confirm that the Government will support Anne McTaggart’s amendment 5.
As I have taken the bill forward I have been keen to listen to the views and representations of members, interested organisations, professional bodies and members of the public. I know that many people are happy that the bill’s current definition of a high hedge will solve the vast majority of high hedge problems, the typical scenario involving fast-growing conifers.
Although the current definition includes hedges containing deciduous trees and shrubs as long as they do not form a majority of the hedge, I have been conscious that that definition would not deal with problems caused by high hedges that are wholly or mainly composed of deciduous trees or shrubs. Although wholly deciduous high hedges would typically pose less of a problem than coniferous hedges in respect of forming a barrier to light, I want to ensure that the bill solves as many problems as possible. I therefore have sympathy with people whom I have spoken to or who have written to me about problems with deciduous hedges.
For me, the question has been whether the bill can be extended in that respect without causing problems for its operation in practice. Some of the potential problems have been highlighted in correspondence, to which Patrick Harvie alluded and which members will have recently received, from the Scottish Wildlife Trust and RSPB. Their correspondence re-emphasises the points that they raised at stage 1 about the greater wildlife and biodiversity value of deciduous trees in comparison with conifers, and it underlines their concerns about the potential for a wider definition to have a negative impact on biodiversity.
Those are important issues, which deserve serious consideration, and officials supporting me in relation to the bill met representatives of both those organisations at a very early stage in the bill’s development to ensure that my consideration has been fully informed. As a result of that, I am aware that there are already many measures in place to protect wildlife and biodiversity, ranging from legislation such as the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to local authorities’ biodiversity action plans. Local authorities will need to take all those protections into account in making decisions regarding high hedges, and I am satisfied that they are capable of doing so.
For that to happen in practice, it is important that the guidance that the Government is to issue on the operation of the legislation provides full details regarding those matters. I have discussed the issue with the minister, and he has agreed that the Scottish Wildlife Trust and RSPB will be invited to contribute to and comment on the guidance before it is published to ensure that it fully addresses their concerns. I have written to both organisations to confirm that, and I hope that they will accept the minister’s invitation to participate actively in the development of the guidance.
I have been keen to ensure that the bill provides local authorities with a means of resolving disputes without demanding that they find additional resources to do so. I was pleased that the Minister for Local Government and Planning wrote to local authorities at stage 2 to consult them on the potential impact of widening the bill’s definition. I believe that the majority of the issues that local authorities raised about that potential impact can also be addressed through the guidance that will be produced by the Government. I know that local authorities will be fully involved in that, and I welcome the minister’s confirmation that the initial meeting to discuss implementation earlier this week was a positive one.
The main issue that cannot be addressed by way of guidance relates to the concerns that were expressed by some authorities about the potential for additional costs to be incurred in dealing with deciduous hedges. I am satisfied, however, that the bill provides that local authorities can charge on a cost recovery basis, and that the flexibility exists for different fees to be charged for different types of case, should local authorities choose to do so. That should enable local authorities to address any issues around additional costs should that prove to be necessary in practice.
Taking all of that into account, I am happy to support Anne McTaggart’s amendment 5, and I urge all members to do likewise.
I am pleased that the Minister for Local Government and Planning and Mark McDonald, the member in charge of the bill, have fully considered my amendment and will be supporting an expansion of the definition of a high hedge. I am grateful to have received cross-party support on the issue, and I thank all members who have made thoughtful contributions to the debate.
I recognise the importance of protecting biodiversity in all areas of Scotland, and I am reassured that the bill will not have a negative impact on local wildlife populations. I anticipate that the bill will apply only to a limited number of cases, where all other options have been exhausted. In those circumstances, it is right that we offer home owners a remedy to on-going disputes and an opportunity to remove intrusive trees and hedges from neighbouring properties.
Stuart McMillan asked about the financial impact of an increase in cases following the expansion of the scope of section 1. I reassure members that section 25 provides for local authorities to recover the costs of enforcement. It is clear that expansion of the definition will not vastly increase the financial burden on local government. The campaign group Scothedge says that only 20 per cent of its members are in dispute about a deciduous high hedge, and it anticipates that the increase in workload will be minimal.
I support the bill as a means of resolving community breakdown following disputes over hedges on neighbouring properties. The bill should be fit for purpose, offering a remedy to all who suffer from such issues. That is why I lodged amendment 5 and strongly believe that it will increase the bill’s scope and effectiveness.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Section 31A—Report on operation of Act
Amendment 2, in the name of Margaret Mitchell, is grouped with amendments 3 and 4.
Amendment 2 would reduce the maximum period after which a review must be carried out from five years to two years. The bill was amended at stage 2 to ensure that the legislation will be reviewed, but the amendment set an upper level of five years, which is potentially too long. The legislation will have bedded down sufficiently after two years. Particularly now that deciduous trees have been included in the bill’s scope, a review could and should be carried out as soon as possible.
Amendment 3 would reduce the period that is allowed for publication of the report on the act’s operation from 18 months to 12 months.
Does Mrs Mitchell agree that there is nothing in the current drafting of section 31A that would prevent a review from being carried out and a report from being published earlier?
I concede that, but it might be five years before a review is carried out and six and a half years before the report is published. There is nothing in the bill that would stop all that taking a very long time.
As the bill stands, the report on the operation of the act must be published within 18 months of the end of the review period. The point that I want to emphasise is that, if the review period remains up to five years, it might be six and a half years before a report is published, which is far too long.
Amendment 4 specifies four aspects that would have to be covered in a report on the operation of the act. Reports would not be limited to those areas but would have to include comment on them. The four areas are: how local authorities have exercised their functions under the legislation; what the costs to local authorities have been of implementation; what issues have arisen in relation to the definition of “high hedge”; and whether the act should be amended to include reference to deciduous trees and shrubs.
Given that Anne McTaggart’s amendment 5 has been agreed to, the third and fourth aspects are even more important. Deciduous trees are now included by default, but amendment 4 would ensure that consideration is given to whether the legislation should include specific reference to them.
Although it is to be expected that the four aspects that I set out would be covered in a report on the act’s operation, amendment 4 would ensure that they are considered.
I move amendment 2.
15:15
We very much welcomed the amendment in the name of Christine Grahame and moved by Anne McTaggart—
Other way round.
I am reminded that the amendment was moved by Anne McTaggart and supported by Christine Grahame.
The context of that amendment touches in many ways upon what Margaret Mitchell wishes to do with her amendments. My understanding of the last part of amendment 4 is that its context is the need for the definition of high hedges to be changed. Now that that is no longer part of what reasonably can be included in amendment 4, the whole rationale for this set of amendments falls.
I note that Margaret Mitchell has offered no specific arguments to support the reduction of the period after which a review must be carried out from five years to two or the reduction in the period that is allowed for publication of the report on the act’s operation from 18 months to 12. In a sense those figures are arbitrary, but I would argue in favour of the five-year period because this issue will touch 32 local authorities and, indeed, the two national parks.
The experience in different parts of Scotland will vary. The climate in north-east Scotland is very different from that in the south-west and the issue in the north-east—in so far as it exists at the same level as in the south-west—will be different. It is very unlikely that we will have anything approximating to complete understanding of the effect of the bill within a period of two years.
I will listen carefully to any arguments that say otherwise, but I am not minded to support any of the amendments in this group. The context for them has now been overtaken by events and the argument for the proposed new timescales has not properly been made.
I lodged the original amendment that included section 31A in the bill because I thought that the five-year period would provide for a measured examination of the legislation. As Stewart Stevenson has said, much of the reasoning for the five-year period was to do with the definition of high hedges, because we were still deciding whether that definition should be widened. Stewart Stevenson is correct that events have overtaken this particular group of amendments.
It is also worth considering that, if the amendments in this group are accepted today, members will be looking at the issue of high hedges again towards the end of this session of Parliament. I do not think that the public would want us to do that or thank us for doing that, so I hope that Margaret Mitchell will consider withdrawing her amendments.
Amendments 2 and 3 seek to impose a tighter timeframe for the review period set out in section 31A and a tighter timeframe for when a report must be made by a committee or sub-committee of the Parliament. Amendment 4 details what should be scrutinised by that sub-committee.
Amendments 2 and 3 both provide for less time than was agreed at stage 2, when the Local Government and Regeneration Committee agreed to Stuart McMillan’s amendment adding section 31A to the bill. Margaret Mitchell suggests that it might be six and a half years before a report on the review is forthcoming, but that is the absolute maximum time period.
At stage 2, I made the point that a future
“committee would not want to be bound by a timescale that provided no flexibility”.—[Official Report, Local Government and Regeneration Committee, 6 March 2013; c 1830.]
I reiterate that point. Shortening the maximum review period to two years and the maximum reporting period to one year after that effectively gives no discretion to the future committee to determine its own priorities and set the appropriate timescales.
On amendment 4, post-legislative scrutiny is not necessary for every piece of legislation that we produce. If it was, that would suggest that we did not have confidence in the legislation that we considered and enacted. A mandatory reporting requirement such as that in section 31A needs particular justification. I understand that the Local Government and Regeneration Committee had particular concerns in relation to this bill and that that is why we have section 31A.
The review requirement was agreed by the committee at stage 2 to reflect particular concerns that were being expressed and to provide the comfort of post-legislative scrutiny on the bill. However, I have strong concerns about going further than section 31A goes. It is one thing to require a committee to report by a certain date; it is another to dictate in detail the terms of its report. Members can leave it up to a future committee to determine the content of its report.
For those reasons, I encourage members not to support Margaret Mitchell’s amendments.
Although I am grateful that Margaret Mitchell did not bring back some of the amendments that she withdrew at stage 2, I am nevertheless disappointed that she has sought to pursue these amendments. They seek to set a shorter timeframe for the review period that is set out in section 31A and for the period for making a report after review. They also seek to detail in the bill what should be scrutinised in that report.
Section 31A was added at stage 2 following a committee recommendation for post-legislative scrutiny, and the committee’s unanimous recommendation was a five-year period. That is in the amended bill, and the member should know that the provision introduced by Stuart McMillan’s amendment is flexible enough to allow that period to be shortened should a future committee wish it to be. Section 31A provides that the review period shall end five years after the date on which section 2 comes into force
“or on such earlier date as may be determined by the committee or sub-committee making the report”.
It is therefore already the case that, if the future committee decides to do so, it may set a shorter timeframe for the review period.
Section 31A also provides that a report
“must be made no later than 18 months after the end of the review period.”
Again, that means that the committee or sub-committee can make the report earlier if it so wishes. I am satisfied that section 31A gives a sufficient balance between the certainty that the legislation will be reviewed within five years and the flexibility for the future committee to make a judgment on when best to conduct its business.
Amendment 4 seeks to ensure that any report on the operation of the legislation considers
“the way in which local authorities have exercised their functions”,
the costs that they have incurred in exercising those functions,
“any issues arising from the meaning of ‘high hedge’”
and whether the definition of a high hedge
“should be amended to apply also to a row of two or more deciduous trees or shrubs.”
As we have amended section 1 to allow deciduous trees to be included, the requirement in amendment 4 for the report to assess whether deciduous trees or shrubs should be included does not appear to make sense. For that reason alone, I ask Margaret Mitchell not to move that amendment.
That also demonstrates the danger of trying to detail in legislation how a committee of the Parliament should go about its business. I am perfectly happy to leave the committee to determine for itself what should be in its report rather than impose prescriptive detail in legislation, as is suggested by Margaret Mitchell.
Section 31A is designed to guarantee post-legislative scrutiny of this new piece of legislation, and I am satisfied that it meets that purpose without any amendment. I therefore ask Margaret Mitchell to withdraw amendment 2 and not to move amendments 3 and 4. Otherwise, I urge members to resist amendments 2, 3 and 4.
The combination of the three amendments—especially amendment 4—ensures that there is clarity that deciduous trees are included rather than, as in the current situation, included merely by default. There is the opportunity to improve the bill in that way by including amendment 4.
Stewart Stevenson appears to ignore the fact that, under the provisions as they currently stand, the report on a review’s findings could be delayed and could take up to six and a half years. I consider that far too long. There is an opportunity—which should be grasped—to ensure that the bill is operating as intended, and I see no reason why any committee scrutinising it would not want to ensure that local authorities have exercised their functions according to the bill. We do not want the bill to sit on the shelf and be ignored. Including the provision to look at how it has operated after three years would ensure that that would not happen.
Does Mrs Mitchell agree that amendment 4 would potentially set an alarming precedent of legislation prescribing what a committee of the Parliament should do as part of its workload?
If the member takes the time to look again at the provisions regarding what must be covered in the report, he will see that the report would not be limited to those areas but would have to include comment on them. I see no reason why those areas should not be commented on, and the amendment gives some guidance on the issues that the committee thought were important in scrutinising the bill. The amendment would ensure that those issues are included in the report, in order to determine whether they have been acted on and whether the bill is working properly when it is implemented.
Will the member give way?
If the member does not mind, I will make some progress.
Secondly, amendment 4 looks at the cost to local authorities, which is germane—is that preventing them from going ahead and implementing the bill as it should be implemented? It looks at the whole definition and it provides an opportunity to include deciduous trees specifically in the legislation.
I thank Margaret Mitchell for taking an intervention. Does she agree that, if the amendments were passed, the review would take place in this parliamentary session? Does she agree that that is probably not a good use of parliamentary time—to bring forward a bill, pass it and then have a review within the same parliamentary session?
If this Parliament has one failing, it is lack of scrutiny, and we have just found out why from Stuart McMillan. If anything, passing the amendments would set a precedent that when we pass legislation we look at how it works in practice and that we are serious about legislation and we pass it because we believe in its provisions.
I press amendment 2, and I intend to move amendments 3 and 4.
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. I suspend the proceedings for five minutes.
15:26
Meeting suspended.
15:31
On resuming—
We will now proceed with the division on amendment 2.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 42, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
Amendment 3 moved—[Margaret Mitchell].
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 44, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
Amendment 4 moved—[Margaret Mitchell].
The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 43, Against 63, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 4 disagreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments.