Welfare Reform (Further Provision) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Welfare Reform (Further Provision) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have: the bill as amended at stage 2; the marshalled list; and the groupings.
For the first division of the afternoon, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes. 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. All other divisions will be 30 seconds. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button as soon as possible after I call the group.
Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
Section 1—Universal credit: further provision
Amendment 1, in the name of Drew Smith, is grouped with amendment 2.
The purpose of amendments 1 and 2 is to ensure a more appropriate level of scrutiny of the regulations that will emanate from the bill. If agreed to, both amendments would require regulations to be subject to affirmative rather than negative procedure.
The issue of the use of negative or affirmative procedure for subordinate legislation does not usually excite the interest of many members of the Parliament, far less those outside it. However, the matter has been discussed at some length by the Welfare Reform Committee and debated at stage 2, and I have brought the amendments back at stage 3 because there is still substantial support among stakeholders for a greater degree of scrutiny of the regulations than that proposed by the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy. As this is an enabling bill, the regulations that arise will form the main substance of the interaction between welfare reform and links to passported benefits.
As a former member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, I understand that there are three types of procedure for dealing with such legislation: negative, affirmative and super-affirmative. Instead of seeking to lecture those more experienced than myself, I will simply trust that members across the chamber understand the differences between each. Suffice it to say, however, that moving from negative to affirmative procedure would mean that the regulations would become subject to a vote in Parliament.
Stakeholders who have made representations to the Welfare Reform Committee and who have lobbied in support of amendments 1 and 2 are concerned that the regulations should be right as well as timely. The timescales for both negative and affirmative procedure are the same—40 days—and many of the charities and others who support the amendments initially preferred the use of super-affirmative procedure to guarantee maximum scrutiny and the widest possible consideration. However, they have come to accept the compromise of affirmative procedure because they are as concerned as the cabinet secretary is that the tight timescales to which the Scottish Government must work are adhered to. I agree with them for the same reason, and because I was concerned that the use of super-affirmative procedure would not provide Scottish ministers with all the flexibility that they may need.
15:00
The timetable is essential to ensure the continued provision of passported benefits when the United Kingdom welfare reform changes come into force. It is also necessary that consideration is concluded before the new financial year.
“The traditional approach to welfare reform—which focuses on a framework in primary legislation accompanied by multiple regulation-making powers—can undermine parliamentary scrutiny.”
Those are not my words, but those of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which published a critical report on the United Kingdom Welfare Reform Bill, which should serve as a warning to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government against their repeating the same mistakes.
The cabinet secretary indicated at stage 1 that over the summer she would seek views on the regulations. I, and others, welcomed that at that time, and do so again today. I note that she has published a consultation on the subject. I would be grateful if, when she responds to the points that I have made so far, she would indicate whether she has now ruled out consulting on draft regulations, in favour of asking open-ended questions.
If there is a will to work together on the issue of procedure, I am sure that a way can be found to make the affirmative procedure work, and the debate can then move on to matters of greater political principle.
I move amendment 1.
Drew Smith is right when he says that his suggestion has been discussed before: it was discussed at stage 1 and again at stage 2. On both occasions it was rejected, and with good reason.
I welcome the support of all stakeholders for the overarching aim of the bill, which is to ensure that vulnerable people continue to get access to passported benefits from April 2013, when the UK Government’s welfare reforms will kick in.
We are operating to a timescale set by another Government that can make changes at any time without consulting the Scottish Government. It is therefore essential that Scottish ministers have the power to act quickly, if required, to ensure that people do not lose out on passported benefits, which are a lifeline to many.
As it stands, the bill will allow affirmative procedure to be used when doing so is merited, and negative procedure to be used otherwise. Amendments 1 and 2 would remove the use of negative procedure entirely, with the risk of the UK deadline being missed if changes were made late in the process. Although the 40-day time limit for scrutiny applies to both types of procedure, the negative procedure allows regulations to come into force sooner—I am sure that people who know more about that than me will explain it in more detail. The approach that the bill sets out is sensible, given that we are in a unique situation. We simply cannot put vulnerable people at risk.
The cabinet secretary has given a clear commitment to consult widely with stakeholders, and the consultation was launched this week—I encourage everyone to take part in it. She has also offered to discuss the outcome of the consultation in detail with the Welfare Reform Committee, so that we can hear the views of people on the front line.
The stakeholders share our primary aim of ensuring that we have the legislation in place by April 2013, which must be our main objective. The legislation needs procedural flexibility so that we can ensure that the required changes are made on time, given the lack of detail from the UK Government and any last-minute changes that it may make. I urge members not to support amendments 1 and 2.
I fully understand the issues that have caused many stakeholders to wish there to be as much scrutiny as possible of subordinate legislation, but, unfortunately, some of those stakeholders have misunderstood—or had misrepresented to them—the relative merits of negative and affirmative procedures. For that reason, I am not convinced by the argument that affirmative procedure should be the appropriate route in all cases, which would be the effect of amendments 1 and 2.
My second concern was expressed a moment ago by Margaret Burgess. In this process, it is likely that in some cases ministers will have to react at short notice and with as much flexibility as possible. I believe that it will be necessary, on occasion, for the minister to have negative procedure at her disposal in order to carry out her responsibilities.
Therefore, amendments 1 and 2, which would have the effect of requiring that only affirmative procedure could ever be used, are unfortunately excessive and would tie the minister’s hands unnecessarily, and perhaps dangerously in some cases.
At the outset of the Welfare Reform Committee’s consideration of these matters, its number 1 priority—and the priority for all the stakeholders who have given evidence—was the necessity for any regulations under the bill that we hope to pass today to be put in place very quickly so that no individual loses out on their passported benefits.
Much has been made of the 40-day timeframe for both negative and affirmative procedures, which means that there should be no delay. However, that does not tell the entire story. As the process is led by the UK Government and is therefore not entirely in the Scottish Government’s hands, there will be occasions—as Alex Johnstone and Margaret Burgess outlined—on which the Scottish Government must react swiftly and put in place a procedure that is contingent on what the UK Government has done. That can be done only through negative procedure, otherwise there is a danger that people might miss out on their passported benefits. On that basis, I oppose amendments 1 and 2.
On the issue of greater scrutiny, the Scottish Government has already written to the Welfare Reform Committee to set out its process for stakeholder involvement. Stakeholders certainly want to be involved in the process, but I do not get any sense that they have a burning desire for all instruments to be dealt with under affirmative procedure. On that basis, I hope that members will oppose amendments 1 and 2.
When we returned from the Christmas recess, neither the bill nor the Welfare Reform Committee that scrutinised it existed. Today is the last day before the summer recess, and the committee has been established, a consultation has taken place and the bill has been introduced. We are now in unprecedented territory in progressing the bill as rapidly as we have done.
Jamie Hepburn is right to say that there is a desire among stakeholders for us to get the legislation in place so that we can move forward, and that has been delivered. With regard to amendments 1 and 2, we are discussing what happens with the subordinate legislation after we return from the summer recess to examine the detail of the consultation responses, so that we can ensure not only that we get the legislation in place in time for the changes that will come in next year, but that we get it right.
The only way that we can reassure and have the confidence of stakeholders, who—in spite of what Jamie Hepburn says—have a real desire for scrutiny, is to give the legislation the maximum amount of scrutiny, which can be done through the use of affirmative procedure. The timescale does not change: it is 40 days for both affirmative and negative procedures. The Government should not hide behind technicalities and should give people the confidence that the Parliament is listening to them and will adapt to their requirements by getting the legislation right.
I am very proud that the Parliament took the unprecedented step of refusing consent for the parts of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 that have given rise to the legislation that is before us today. I am glad that the Government has been able to respond to that decision in a timely way and that, six months later, we stand poised to enact legislation that will allow the Scottish Government to make the necessary changes to secure lifeline passported benefits. That is what the debate and the bill are all about.
However, I believe that the time has come to move on from this part of the process. We now need to go out and speak to stakeholders and to listen to more of what they have to say in order to ensure that we get the detail right. I am pleased that, as Drew Smith indicated, the Government has launched its consultation on passported benefits, and we will continue to consult stakeholders as closely and in as much detail as we can as we go further through the process.
The issue of scrutiny has been raised on a number of occasions, and members have said—at stage 2 and today—that stakeholders have a desire for a substantial degree of scrutiny. I think that that is right, and I have always recognised it to be the case.
However, what I believe that stakeholders and practitioners throughout the country want more than anything is to get down to the detail of what the bill will do. They want to ensure that people who currently rely on passported benefits will continue to have access to those benefits.
The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, in its briefing to members for the debate, said:
“It is time to move beyond parliamentary process. It is time to prepare for the practical impact on people’s lives”.
Yes—there is a desire among stakeholders to be consulted and to be listened to. However that is not about an additional layer of parliamentary procedure; it is about an assurance that we will get it right.
The Scottish Government does not support amendments 1 and 2. We believe that the approach that is set out in the bill is the best one. I make it clear that we are opposed to the amendments not because we do not want scrutiny, nor because we think that they are unnecessary. I make it abundantly clear that I think that the amendments are potentially dangerous to the interests of vulnerable people. Frankly, I think that, in saying again and again that there is no difference between the timescales for affirmative and negative procedures, Drew Smith and Michael McMahon border on being misleading, because with affirmative procedure it is not possible to bring regulations into force until the 40 day-period has elapsed, whereas with negative procedure, although members have 40 days to annul the regulations, they can take effect earlier than that. Therefore, there is a substantial difference.
If we were to agree to amendments 1 and 2, we would remove completely the ability of the Scottish Government to use negative procedure for subordinate legislation that is made under the bill. Let me spell out what that could mean. It could mean that if the UK Government makes last-minute changes—Margaret Burgess was right to say that we are operating to a timescale that the UK Government has set—we could find ourselves in the position of being unable to bring regulations into effect to protect continued access to the passported benefits that so many people in Scotland rely on. I cannot speak for Labour members, but I think that I can speak for all Scottish National Party members: we will not play fast and loose with the lives of vulnerable people in Scotland.
Let us move on from the procedural debates and get into meaningful discussion about how the welfare changes will operate at the level of everyday experience. Our consultation and our continued discussions with stakeholders will support that approach; amendments 1 and 2 will not. I do not believe that they are appropriate, and I urge members not to support them. Indeed, I ask Drew Smith to withdraw amendment 1 and not to move amendment 2.
The debate has reflected our previous discussion of the issue at stage 2, but I felt that it was important for the Parliament as a whole to be consulted about this key matter of contention. It would perhaps be excessive to advocate the use of super-affirmative procedure for all regulations that emanate from the bill, which is an approach that many stakeholders originally supported, but a less onerous procedure such as the one that I have suggested is, in my view, a reasonable proposition.
In their report to the committee on the differences between the legislative processes, the clerks made it clear that a 40-day period applies in relation to affirmative and negative instruments. The cabinet secretary explained the circumstances in which the coming into force of an instrument earlier than that is triggered.
I continue to believe that the use of affirmative procedure would encourage the Scottish Government and all stakeholders to ensure that we get the regulations right and that vulnerable people have continuity of benefit provision.
Will the member give way?
I would rather not, if Mr Hepburn will excuse me.
Stakeholder groups that work with vulnerable clients who need continuity in the provision of their passported benefits are calling for affirmative procedure to be used to afford the greatest level of parliamentary scrutiny. The Parliament should follow an evidence-based approach to policy making and in the scrutiny of legislation.
In the debate on the matter at stage 2, Jackie Baillie suggested that we should listen to those who work on the front line. The vast majority of organisations that are involved in this area have called for the use of affirmative procedure, including Children 1st, Citizens Advice Scotland, Barnardo’s, One Parent Families Scotland and Capability Scotland, which said this week in its briefing:
“we would have preferred the super-affirmative procedure”.
Also this week, Inclusion Scotland said:
“We appreciate the urgency to draft the regulations in good time ... in part because of this urgency we urge the greatest scrutiny possible to mitigate against any unintended but damaging consequences. Any small error could cause far-reaching impacts for disabled people but also in the longer term for local authorities and others.”
I remain more convinced by the arguments of those front-line organisations than I do by what we have heard today. Therefore, I intend to 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, I suspend the meeting for five minutes.
15:14
Meeting suspended.
15:19
On resuming—
We move to the division on amendment 1.
For
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)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
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, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (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)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
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) (SNP)
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 35, Against 79, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Section 2—Personal independence payment: further provision
Amendment 2 moved—[Drew Smith].
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
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)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
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, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (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)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
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) (SNP)
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 35, Against 80, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
Section 3—Regulations under this Act: ancillary provision
Group 2 comprises minor technical amendments. Amendment 4, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 5 to 7. [Interruption.] I ask for Ms Sturgeon’s microphone to be switched on, please.
I can shout.
I would prefer it if you did not shout.
After all that, members will be delighted to hear that I will—possibly—be as brief as I have ever been in the chamber in speaking to these four amendments. I believe—although we never know in the Parliament—that the amendments are entirely uncontentious. They were lodged to ensure an overall consistency of narrative and they will improve the bill’s readability. I urge members to support amendments 4 to 7.
I move amendment 4.
I take it that you do not wish to wind up—that will do.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Amendments 5 to 7 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.
After section 3
Amendment 8 is in a group on its own.
As members will be aware, amendment 8 is the result of a discussion that we had in the Welfare Reform Committee at stage 2. It replaces a similar amendment that Jackie Baillie lodged. The Government had a couple of issues with the drafting of that amendment, so we made changes that are in keeping with the original amendment’s intent. I am happy to bring the issue back to the Parliament.
Amendment 8 will create a duty on the Scottish ministers to lay before the Parliament an annual report on the impact of the UK Government’s welfare reforms. We have widened the scope of what can go in that report. Jackie Baillie’s amendment focused on the
“social, economic and financial effects”.
I understand her reasons for that, but we might want to look at other things, such as the health impacts.
Members will be aware of the Oxfam briefing paper that has been published this month, which refers to the negative health impacts that have been experienced by people whom it describes as living at the bottom of UK society. NHS Highland gave evidence to the Finance Committee last week on similar issues. That is one example of things that we might want to look at, and it is right that amendment 8 gives us the scope to consider that.
We have put a time limit on the requirement to produce the reports, although I stress that that is more about reviewing the need than about necessarily ending it. The important thing is that, during the period specified by the amendment—2012 to 2017—the UK Government will roll out its welfare changes, giving rise to what Oxfam has described as a “perfect storm” for millions who are already struggling to make ends meet. It is right that we keep on top of those changes and provide Parliament with as much meaningful information as we can during that implementation period.
After that period, once the UK Government has migrated working-age benefit claimants across to the universal credit and once it has gone through what I expect will be a painful process of reassessing everyone who is currently claiming the disability living allowance, we will be in a different place. Indeed, some of us hope that Scotland will be in a very different place by that time. In any event, the universal credit will become the overall landscape rather than the event, and it is right that we give ourselves the option at that stage to reassess the reports in the light of the overall circumstances that we face at that time.
Returning to my earlier theme of moving on, I am pleased that, as far as amendment 8 is concerned, we have been able to make some progress from the debate at stage 2. We have had positive discussions and I hope that we have come up with something that members agree will serve a useful and meaningful purpose. I said at stage 2 that I did not think that it was strictly necessary to have the amendment written into legislation. Notwithstanding that, I will be happy to see the amendment agreed to today, and I am happy to provide Parliament with regular updates on the impact of the welfare reforms.
I move amendment 8.
As a member of the Welfare Reform Committee, I speak in support of the amendment. It represents a good example of the consensual working that has taken place between the Scottish Government and the Labour member Jackie Baillie. The amendment that Jackie Baillie lodged at stage 2 has been significantly improved further to a commitment that the cabinet secretary made at stage 2 to work together to frame a workable amendment. That has been achieved through, in particular, the removal of the rather onerous requirement in the earlier amendment to report on something before it had happened. The amendment has also been improved with respect to the issue of scope.
I and some of my colleagues on the committee expressed some doubts about the necessity for the amendment. However, I am happy to support it as it is reworded. I repeat the point that I made in committee at stage 2: welfare is reserved to Westminster, although the resources for welfare come from this country and are channelled through the London Government instead of being made available to the Scottish Parliament. I hope that that will change in the years to come, but it raises the key question in the debate: why would Labour prefer Tory rule on welfare rather than home rule?
I did not like the amendment when it was lodged at stage 2, in the name of Jackie Baillie, and I like it even less now that it has the minister’s name on it—for no other reason than what it says in the first few lines. The amendment states:
“The Scottish Ministers must prepare an initial report giving such information as they consider appropriate about the impact that the UK Act is likely to have on people in Scotland.”
It invites the Scottish Government to speculate on its own policy terms. It is, I believe, an agenda for grievance and has no place in the bill or, in my view, in any act of this or any other Parliament.
I add my support for amendment 8 and thank the cabinet secretary for making her officials available to discuss the amendment with the Scottish Labour Party. As the cabinet secretary said, it moves on from a previous amendment that Labour members lodged and supported at stage 2. I congratulate the cabinet secretary on the consensual way in which she has handled the issue and faced down the opposition at stage 2 of the SNP back benchers on the Welfare Reform Committee, who were utterly opposed to the amendment.
15:30
I am struck by the physical gulf that appears to have opened up between the Tory front and back benches. I am not sure whether the seats are being reserved for their new friends in the Labour Party.
Before I stood up this afternoon, I was convinced that the amendment was worthy of support, and hearing that the Tories oppose it has made me all the more convinced. I say in all seriousness to Alex Johnstone that the only speculation about the impact of the UK welfare reforms on the most vulnerable people in our society is how bad that impact will be. That is why it is right that this Government takes seriously its duty to do what it can to mitigate the impact and to keep Parliament informed of the impact as it becomes ever clearer.
Amendment 8 is sensible; it is the result of good discussions at stage 2, and I ask all members to support it.
The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
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)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
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) (SNP)
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)
Against
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 102, Against 13, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendment 3, in the name of Drew Smith, is in a group on its own.
The purpose of amendment 3 is to require the Government to lay a policy statement before the Parliament to explain the intended effect of the regulations that will emanate from the bill. Capability Scotland said of my amendment that it is vital that the Scottish Government prepares a statement that spells out its overall intention on welfare reform and its approach to passported benefits, among other things.
Many of the groups that have been lobbying Parliament about the bill are deeply concerned about the potential for regulations to make matters worse for vulnerable people in Scotland, rather than better. Barnardo’s Scotland, Children 1st, Citizens Advice Scotland, and One Parent Families Scotland signed up to a joint statement that was circulated to all members this week. It stated:
“It is unusual for any bill to be laid before the Parliament without the context provided by a policy statement, telling us the purpose and the objective of ministers’ legislative intentions and where the bill sits within the ministers’ overall policy context. Given that this legislation takes on responsibilities that flow from a UK Government law, understanding the policy context within which the bill sits is arguably even more important than usual.”
Amendment 3 is a redrafted version of a previous amendment that was defeated by SNP members at stage 2. It has been redrafted to make it as palatable as possible to the cabinet secretary, and to take account of the few issues that she raised against its passage at stage 2. Like my previous amendments, amendment 3 has wide support among the people who are most concerned with the impact of the bill, and I have yet to hear any good argument against the proposal, which is modest and reasonable.
I move amendment 3.
I will be as brief as I possibly can.
I draw members’ attention to subsection (1) and subsection (3)(b) of the proposed new section in Mr Smith’s amendment. I do not know whether he did this inadvertently, but if those two subsections are put together the effect is to require ministers to prepare a statement that explains the policy objectives of all the regulations that they will ever make under the act, and to lay that statement before the first regulations are laid. That seems to me to be rather illogical, to say the least. It also makes it very difficult because, as we are all aware, ministers are still unaware of Westminster’s intentions on some of those issues. I ask Mr Smith to say when he sums up whether that was done inadvertently, or whether it was just lack of common sense.
I will support the amendment, as I did at stage 2, because it asks Scottish ministers to do all the things that they should be doing, not simply to carp and complain as amendment 8 invited them to do. Scottish ministers should be delivering a written statement to explain their policy objectives, plans and approaches. It is such a disappointment that ministers have not taken the opportunity to do as they did with the other amendments and work with the proposer to ensure that the amendment comes together in such a way as to fit into the bill. The principles behind amendment 3 are correct. It is the antithesis of amendment 8 and it will have my support.
After the brief interlude of the previous amendment, it is good to see the Labour-Tory coalition once again. I oppose amendment 3. The issue was the focus of extensive discussion at the Welfare Reform Committee during consideration of its stage 1 report, and when a similar amendment was presented and rejected at stage 2. I recognise that there has been some movement in the drafting of amendment 3, but I am still concerned that including any such requirement for a policy statement on the face of the bill is overly prescriptive.
The Welfare Reform Committee, of which I am a member, is well capable of assessing the Scottish Government’s policy intentions without any need for a policy statement, and that takes care of any concern that regulations might make matters worse, although I have heard no such concern expressed. If that were to happen, the Welfare Reform Committee would be well able to assess any such concern. That has been the majority position of the committee at stage 1 and stage 2.
Drew Smith said that he had not heard any coherent argument against the amendment; frankly, I have not heard a coherent argument for it, and so we should reject it.
Others have made the point, but it is worth repeating that it is a bit ironic that the Labour and Tory better-together chums want to place a statutory responsibility on the Scottish Government to produce a policy statement on welfare, given that they want welfare policy to remain in the hands of a right-wing Tory Government in Westminster. That seems a rather odd position to take.
I will be relatively brief in speaking to amendment 3, because there is no need for the amendment. At stage 2, I said that I would be happy to give a commitment to produce a policy statement. I put that on the record at stage 2 and I put it on the record here in the chamber again today. At stage 2, I indicated that the right time to make such a statement would be after we had concluded the consultation exercise that we started this afternoon. I accept that Drew Smith has changed the amendment to that effect; that is fine, but I also said at stage 2 that I fundamentally disagreed that a statement required to be included in the bill and nothing in amendment 3 makes me feel any differently about that.
Furthermore, Kevin Stewart has set out extremely well how amendment 3 is fundamentally technically flawed. It would create a duty on Scottish ministers to provide a single written statement explaining the policy objectives of any regulations that they are considering ever making under the act. The practical effect of that would be to require us to explain all the regulations that we will ever make before we lay the first set of regulations before Parliament. That would create obvious practical difficulties if, for example, changes in United Kingdom Government policy required us to, or we wanted to, alter or revoke any of the regulations that we make.
Jackie Baillie said during stage 2 that her desire in lodging the amendment was to introduce clarity of intention. The Government has always been perfectly clear that our intent in introducing the bill was to update legislation in devolved areas and, in particular, the provisions that support entitlement to devolved passported benefits, so that there are no unforeseen negative impacts as a result of the UK Government changes, where we have the ability to mitigate those impacts.
That is what we are trying to do, and that is what a general policy statement would say. I am happy to give that commitment here, but there is no need for amendment 3; indeed, because of the technical flaws in the amendment, agreeing to it would lead to an absurd situation. I urge members to vote against the amendment.
The cabinet secretary refers to the attitude of parties in this chamber to the continued reservation of welfare matters. However, as the bill is geared around devolved benefits, that analysis does not stand up.
It is important that we have a clear statement of intent from the Scottish Government that sets out its vision for how the bill, and the regulations that will emanate from it, will mitigate the effects of welfare reform, if that is its intention. That applies to all regulations coming from the Government. I always have confidence in the cabinet secretary’s intentions, but we must be clear that all ministers are bound to introduce regulations that seek to mitigate where possible.
At stage 2, the cabinet secretary had the opportunity to offer an olive branch on the issue, which she did not take, and no attempt was made to work with us on that. On that basis, I press the amendment.
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
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)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (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)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (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)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
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, Aileen (Clydesdale) (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)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
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)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (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)
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)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (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) (SNP)
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 51, Against 64, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.