Official Report 581KB pdf
15:22
The next item of business is stage 3 of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 46A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after the group is called.
Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
After section 5
Amendment 149, in the name of Brian Whittle, is grouped with amendments 159 and 303.
Here we go again.
The concern that I am trying to address with my amendments in this group is about the protection of patients and their wishes and the protection of healthcare professionals. My amendment 149 seeks to provide clarity on a patient’s decision to family members and friends, because the patient’s wishes are paramount in such situations. Amendments 149 and 303 seek to make provision for the Scottish Government to bring forward a template advance care directive that expresses the patient’s wishes for end-of-life treatment when they are accessing assisted dying. I stress that it would be optional to use the full template or some of the template or to decline to use it at all. The advance care directive could not be used to choose assisted dying in the event of incapacity.
Amendment 159 would create an obligation for medical practitioners to discuss the advance care directive with the terminally ill adult. In response to stage 2 feedback, I have removed the legal requirement for an advance care directive to be completed. A terminally ill adult would have the option of using the template that the Government produced, filling in as little or as much of it as they wanted. A discussion about advance care directives would still be mandatory, so that patients would be aware of all their options.
Overall, this set of amendments would help to avoid doubt about patient intention and would provide clarity to patients, healthcare professionals and loved ones. I have looked at research across the UK and at international examples of what should be included. It is standard elsewhere, and using the bill as a way to introduce the practice would give us a clear way to evaluate how it can work. The advance care directive makes clear the patient’s wishes around specific items of care that may prolong their life if they become incapacitated and cannot continue with the assisted dying process, become incapacitated due to the effects of the substance, choose to cancel their declaration, or decide not to use the substance. Again, the advance care directive cannot be used to choose assisted dying in the event of incapacity.
The template requirement is to allow a standard format for the advance directive that fits the needs of healthcare professionals and makes information easy to locate when needed. Power is given to ministers to expand the scope beyond what is listed, if required, in consultation with health professionals. I recognise that the Law Society of Scotland feels that reform of advance care directives should occur more comprehensively. However, as the functions under the bill will be reviewed, this is an opportunity to test-pilot changes around advance care directives.
I move amendment 149.
Taken together, the amendments in this group concern the matter of advance care directives.
On amendments 149, 159 and 303, the Scottish Government would highlight that requiring advance care directives as part of the process raises legal and deliverability considerations. At present, advance care directives are not legally binding in Scotland, although they are generally treated as strong evidence of a person’s wishes. Mandating their use in this context could create uncertainty for medical practitioners and patients about their legal status and how they should be applied in practice.
I have nothing further to add.
Brian Whittle’s amendment 149, and consequential amendment 159, would require assessing doctors to make a person aware of the option of making an advance care directive, and they would work along with the consequential regulation-making power in amendment 303.
As I have said previously, I see a great deal of value in advance care directives. I am pleased that the amendment that Mr Whittle has lodged sets them out as an option rather than as a requirement for those seeking assistance. Advance care planning is a valuable tool in helping people to ensure that their wishes are understood and respected.
To deliver truly patient-centred care, people should be able to decide what care plans they have in place and what medical treatments they do and do not receive, including if they want to refuse treatments or palliative care. General Medical Council guidance already places a duty on doctors to provide relevant information to patients and to have a dialogue with them about the decisions that they may wish to make. It is relevant to note that the bill, as currently drafted, requires the registered medical practitioner to explain and discuss with the person, as far as is considered appropriate, the nature of the substance that might be provided to assist the person to end their own life, including how it will bring about death. The person will therefore be fully informed from the start and, in practice, that provision will likely facilitate a discussion between the person and their doctor about what should happen in all possible circumstances.
I am sure that Mr Whittle would agree that it will be important to ensure that there is clarity around what would happen should somebody change their mind, having submitted an advance care directive.
On balance, I support Brian Whittle’s amendments in this area and genuinely thank him for the power of work that he has done not just at stage 3, but also earlier, at stage 2, on the same issue.
I call Brian Whittle to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 149.
15:30
I say at the outset how disappointed I am to hear the Government’s position on this. Of course, the Government is right: advanced care directives are not legally binding. That is not why they are there—they are there to give clarity not just to the healthcare professional who is reading the notes, but to loved ones as well. We talked yesterday about coercion, and I think that directives are part of a package.
Does Brian Whittle agree that this is not just about the particular circumstances that we are debating today? It is a good idea for us all to discuss with our loved ones potential health matters that might arise further down the line and what care and treatment options we might want. It is my understanding that Brian Whittle is seeking to establish good practice, regardless of whether we are talking in the context of assisted dying or generally about healthcare contingencies that might be required later in our lives.
I absolutely agree with that. There is nothing contentious about offering an advance care directive in such situations. As Daniel Johnson rightly highlighted, we sometimes struggle to talk about what we want going forward, and the advance care directive is a means of discussing with healthcare professionals what someone wants in a certain eventuality. It is not legally binding, but it sets out what the patient wants, and that is of paramount importance when we are talking about assisted dying. It is not about what everybody else wants; it is about what the patient wants.
I press amendment 149.
The question is, that amendment 149 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. As this is the first division today in the stage 3 amendment stage, I will suspend the meeting for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.
15:31
Meeting suspended.
15:37
On resuming—
We will now proceed with the division on amendment 149. Members should cast their votes now.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.
Thank you, Ms Todd. Your vote will be recorded.
On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Robertson. Your vote will be recorded.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Abstentions
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 63, Against 52, Abstentions 4.
Amendment 149 agreed to.
Group 7 is on assessments, including support, of terminally ill adults. Amendment 150, in the name of Brian Whittle, is grouped with amendments 22, 23, 153 to 155, 157, 26, 28 to 32, 161, 163 to 171, 173, 34, 34A, 176, 179, 9, 183, 183A, 184, 185, 37, 186, 91, 92, 188, 38, 95, 39, 193 to 195, 40, 196, 197, 300, 301, 304, 306, 307, 67, 78, 78A, 79, 81, 83, 83A and 85.
I remind members that, if amendment 161 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 162, which was previously debated in group 2, on eligibility to be provided with assistance. I also remind members that, if amendment 125, which was previously debated in group 5, on training, qualifications and experience of health professionals, is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 301, due to pre-emption.
I will start with amendment 22, which is a tidying amendment.
The concern here is that those accessing assisted dying should be provided with all options of support, including social care and palliative care.
Amendment 34 would add a reference to a social care assessment to the medical practitioner’s statement under section 8, and amendment 34A would add a reference to a palliative care assessment to the medical practitioner’s statement under section 8 in relation to Bob Doris’s amendment 23, which would introduce a requirement to assess palliative care.
Amendment 78 would add a reference to a social care assessment to the medical practitioner’s statement in schedule 2, and amendment 78A would add a reference to a palliative care assessment to the medical practitioner’s statement in schedule 2 in relation to Bob Doris’s amendment 23.
Amendment 83 would add a reference to a social care assessment to a medical practitioner’s statement in schedule 3, and amendment 83A would add a reference to a palliative care assessment to the medical practitioner’s statement in schedule 3 in relation to Bob Doris’s amendment 23.
At one point, the amendments read “social care or palliative care”. I place on record my thanks to Liam McArthur for agreeing to move to “social care and palliative care”. Both serve different needs and should be assessed in their own right.
Amendments 150 and 304 are designed to tackle the concern that assisted dying becomes a preferred option to patients because of a lack of palliative care. Amendment 150 seeks to allow the Scottish ministers to define minimum standards of palliative care for those accessing assisted dying. Amendment 304 is consequential.
I have engaged with the third sector on this issue. I understand that it is hesitant that this may become a barrier to accessing palliative care, but access to an acceptable level of deliverable palliative care is an important consideration of the bill. At stage 2, I drafted the amendment to include a requirement that the plan should be costed, to make a point about deliverability. Following feedback about its workability, I have removed that requirement.
Amendment 155 seeks to address the concern that the medical professionals’ opinions must be truly independent of each other. It would place limitations on the availability of notes to the independent registered medical practitioner to ensure that they are making their assessment on the exact same evidence as was available to the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner at the point of request.
It should be the case that the independent registered medical practitioner cannot have consulted the co‑ordinating registered medical practitioner on the case, except for referral, nor have had access to the notes of the co‑ordinating registered medical practitioner regarding the assisted dying request beyond the date on which the request is made.
Stage 2 feedback from the committee was that the amendment needed to be clear that it restricts only information about the person’s wishes to access assisted dying, not their entire medical record, as we recognise that those who are terminally ill can have rapidly changing healthcare needs and concerns.
I have tidied up the amendment, which now requires that the independent registered medical practitioner
“has not been provided with any other notes prepared by the coordinating registered medical practitioner regarding the person’s request to be provided with assistance to end their own life since the date of the first declaration”.
Amendment 193, which is consequential to amendment 174, would require that the statement from an independent assessor be recorded in an adult’s medical record.
I move amendment 150.
My amendments in this group are on three main areas: first, on palliative care; secondly, on the requirements that are set out in the medical practitioner’s report; and thirdly, on registered medical practitioners’ discretion.
There are five amendments on palliative care: amendments 23 and 165 to 168. I will turn first to amendment 23.
The bill contains a requirement on the registered medical practitioner to ascertain whether the appropriate social care has been provided or offered to any person seeking assisted dying. Amendment 23 would require that the same registered medical practitioner also ascertains whether appropriate palliative care has been offered or provided to that person. That offers a consistency of approach, and I urge members to support it.
15:45
Amendments 165 and 166 would dictate the circumstances in which the registered medical practitioner must refer to a palliative care specialist. Amendment 165 would require such a referral when the appropriate palliative care had not been offered or provided to the person. Amendment 166 would require such a referral when the person’s reasons for seeking assisted dying were that they had uncontrolled symptoms, or fears of such symptoms, which is a particularly important issue for palliative care specialists.
Both of those are clear-cut examples of when the input of a palliative care specialist could make a substantive difference to ensuring that the person seeking assisted dying has all the support required to make an informed decision on assisted dying that is relevant to their circumstances.
In the experience of specialist palliative care practitioners, people with a life-shortening condition who express a wish to shorten their life because of distressing physical or psychological symptoms, including common fears, often change their minds. They often go on to enjoy valuable time once those symptoms have been explored, understood and addressed through appropriate palliative care. Indeed, such people will often say later that they are glad that they did not end their life.
It is not reasonable or safe to assume that someone who made a first declaration to seek assisted dying would already have received appropriate palliative care. In fact, a wish to hasten death might be an indication of a lack of appropriate palliative care.
My amendment 167 would ensure that, if a person chose not to have such a specialist palliative assessment, refusal in itself would not make them ineligible for assisted dying. The person’s autonomy would therefore be respected. Amendment 168 would allow the registered medical practitioner who was carrying out the assisted dying assessment to take into account, if they wished, a refusal to attend a palliative care assessment in their decision making.
Together, those amendments aim to ensure that no one pursues an assisted death without having first received appropriate palliative care and, more specifically, that someone does not pursue an assisted death because of agony that could be treated or because of fears that could be allayed.
My second set of amendments in the group would create a requirement for a medical practitioner’s report to be compiled. The report would set out how any assessment has been reached and would document what evidence was gathered and used to inform the decision and judgment, and the reasons why the practitioner reached their judgment. Without that, the bill contains what, in reality, would be tick-box forms for recording the outcomes of an assessment.
The information to be contained in the report would not be recorded anywhere else under the current provisions in the bill. My amendment 37 would therefore establish a provision for registered medical practitioner reports to capture such important information. Through that, the evidence and reasoning behind each assisted dying decision would be clear.
The medical practitioner’s report would also provide relevant information in case of complaints. It might actually be a source of protection for practitioners when there is absolutely no wrongdoing. Should the bill be passed, those reports would also be an important source to inform understanding of the operation of the act in any review. It is surely only right that, with something as significant as assisted dying, a report is prepared rather than simply a tick-box proforma.
Amendments 38, 39, 40 and 67 are all consequential on amendment 37. Amendment 38 would ensure that, if a request for assisted dying was cancelled, there would be no need to prepare such a report. Amendments 39 and 40 would ensure that the person’s general practitioner would be provided with the medical practitioner’s report and that it would be added to medical records. Amendment 67 would add the report to the regulation-making provisions in the bill for the Scottish Government.
Finally, my last set of amendments in the group aim to add consistency to the discussions that a registered medical practitioner would have with any person seeking an assisted death. Under the bill as it stands, matters of diagnosis, prognosis, available treatments and palliative, hospice and other care options, as well as the nature of the substance that would be provided to a person, would be explained and discussed with them,
“in so far as the registered medical practitioner considers appropriate”.
In reality, that could mean no conversation at all. Amendment 28 would ensure that a conversation would have to take place.
Amendment 32 would ensure that the registered medical practitioner would have to advise the person who was seeking an assisted death to inform their registered medical practitioner that they were seeking an assisted death. They would also be advised to discuss the request with someone close to them.
That was quite a lengthy explanation of my three sets of amendments in the group. All that I would add is that I fully support what Brian Whittle said earlier and the amendments in the name of Fulton MacGregor, who we will hear from shortly.
So far in stage 3, there has been much discussion about the safeguards that might be provided for in the bill, but in reality that boils down to the judgment of two doctors.
That might be the right way to proceed, but we need to be clear that the opinion of the co-ordinating medical practitioner and the independent medical practitioner would be the safeguard. Yes, that would be subject to guidance, training and consultation with other professionals, as set out in other amendments, but, ultimately, eligibility would be their decision. We need to think carefully about how the judgment is arrived at and in what context, and we must ensure that it is robust, evidenced and accountable. Most critically, what happens if the doctors’ opinions are that the person is not eligible for assisted dying? Those questions are the subjects of my amendments in the group.
Amendment 153 would ensure that the medical practitioner makes the assessment in person and that they meet the person on “more than one occasion” before they do so. At stage 2, I lodged a probing amendment that sought to specify how long the doctor had known the patient, because I sought to establish that a good doctor-patient relationship is needed in order to arrive at an opinion. As a bare minimum, two in-person consultations should be needed in order to arrive at that judgment.
We are in agreement on this issue. As was raised yesterday, the importance of the doctor-patient relationship is unique. My concern is that that relationship is becoming more distant because people do not see the same doctor repeatedly. Doctors must meet patients face to face in person, because they have to be able to look them in the eye and gauge their feelings and emotions. Does Mr Johnson agree?
I completely agree. It is important that good understanding is established. That cannot be achieved in a perfunctory way; it must be done in person. We do not want the matter to be decided after very short interactions; they must be quality interactions.
I pay tribute to Bob Doris, because he was quite right, and I urge all members to look at schedule 2. In a sense, the form of statements is the device that will evidence the opinion of the co-ordinating medical practitioner. All that is required is the details of the medical practitioner and the individual, a line to specify the condition, a line to be deleted, a signature and a date at the bottom. Given the gravity of the decision, that is not in and of itself sufficient.
I will comment on the face-to-face patient-doctor relationship, which Mr Whittle and Mr Johnson raised. I do not know whether Daniel Johnson agrees, but I surmise that, once a person is diagnosed with a terminal illness, the relationship becomes much more personal and face to face, and is not restricted just to phone calls between 8 o’clock and 10 o’clock and getting lines from the doctor. The issue has to be addressed, but the GP and the patient will, in many cases, have much more of a relationship once the diagnosis has been confirmed.
I agree with that. Sometimes, the nature and intensity of the diagnosis produce a very good-quality relationship, which is why, as I reflected at stage 2, the length of time is not a good proxy for that, because sometimes a short but intense doctor-patient relationship is much more valuable than a long but cursory one.
Turning to my amendment 9, I reflected on some of the discussion at stage 2 between Liam McArthur and Bob Doris. Although there is much merit in Bob Doris’s amendment 37, which would introduce the requirement for a report, I worry that it might be burdensome, especially given the sensitive timing that is involved in the process. However, at the very least, a statement is required, which is what amendments 9, 183 and 183A would address. The particular point is that it must be recorded when a medical practitioner does not agree that the assisted dying process should proceed. Amendment 9 would ensure that a statement on the assessment is recorded and provided to the patient, which is important because, if the original decision is subsequently reversed, it must be referred to and the subsequent medical practitioner must explain why they have arrived at a different opinion. Given the nature and structure of the drafting, that is provided for in amendment 183A.
It is important that the bill provides for what should happen not just if the decision was to proceed with the process but if the decision was not to proceed with it. My amendments are modelled on the New Zealand legislation, which clearly specifies what should happen if the co-ordinating medical practitioner decides that the person is not eligible or that the process should not proceed.
Amendment 183 specifies that, in addition to the form that is set out in schedule 2, further details would need to be given in the form of an additional statement, which would need to be recorded. That statement would need to set out the nature of the relationship between the patient and the doctor, the doctor’s understanding of the nature of the patient’s condition, the co-ordinating medical practitioner’s understanding of the patient’s capacity and the steps that had been undertaken to assess that. It is important to evidence and record such things, so that we have clarity, robust evidence and accountable decision making on what would, ultimately, be an incredibly important decision by both the patient and the doctor.
Daniel Johnson referred to my amendment 37, on the medical practitioner’s report. He appeared to be supportive of it, but he was concerned that such provision could be overly burdensome or bureaucratic. I reassure him that amendment 67 would allow the Scottish Government to set out in regulations the details of such a report so that that would not be the case. I hope that, on reflection, he will support amendment 37 and its consequential amendments, because it would surely be important to have a rationale for the decision that the co-ordinating medical practitioner arrived at.
Indeed, but I believe that my amendments would require that rationale. Rather than there being a full report, the rationale would be provided in the form of a statement. Having reflected on the stage 2 debate, I think that that would provide the required robustness and clarity. It always slightly concerns me when we leave things to regulations when we could provide clarity. However, if my amendments are not agreed to, I will support Mr Doris’s amendments.
With regard to Daniel Johnson’s amendment 9, where would the statement of dissatisfaction be recorded? Would it go into the patient’s medical record? If so—and if amendment 9 is agreed to—I encourage the cabinet secretary to commit to putting that in the guidance. I agree with the purpose of the amendment, but I am not entirely clear where that statement would go and in which record it would be put. I presume that it would be put into the patient’s medical record, but it would be useful if it could be confirmed that that is the intention.
That is very much the intention. The fact that it does not say that explicitly in amendment 9 is probably a drafting oversight, which is unfortunate, but that was my intention when I gave my instructions. I, too, would be grateful if that could be clarified in the guidance, because I think that the statement should be recorded in the patient’s medical records.
Above all, I say to members that, although the bill sets out what should happen if the decision was to proceed with the process, we should think very carefully about whether the bill provides sufficient clarity about what should happen if the decision was not to proceed. At the very least, some of the provisions in the amendments in this group have merit and should be agreed to.
Amendment 154, in my name, seeks to strengthen the assessment process by ensuring that registered medical practitioners must fully discuss the range of palliative care options with anyone who is making a declaration. That would include
“symptom management, pain relief, psychological and social support, and end-of-life planning”.
Crucially, the amendment would also require that the patient understood those options and that the discussion was formally recorded.
At its core, amendment 154 is about real choice. As the bill currently stands, a doctor could proceed with assessing eligibility for assisted suicide without guaranteeing that the person fully understood or had access to the care that could relieve their suffering. That is simply not acceptable. If we do not ensure that palliative care is funded and accessible, we risk presenting people with a false choice between unbearable suffering and ending their life prematurely. True autonomy can exist only when people are able to access the care that they need, regardless of circumstance.
16:00
We know from palliative care specialists that suffering at the end of life can often be alleviated with expert support. Pain management, psychological care and holistic support can significantly reduce the desire for an assisted death. That is why it is essential that discussions about those options are comprehensive, understood by the patient and formally recorded. That would not only strengthen informed decision making but ensure a clear safeguard whereby palliative care was fully considered before any assisted death was pursued. If the bill is genuinely to be about choice, it must guarantee that every person knows and has access to the full spectrum of palliative care. Without that guarantee, I fear that the bill risks turning what should be a well-supported, fully informed decision into one that is coerced or coerced by circumstance.
Amendment 154 is a small but crucial step to ensuring that patients would not be left facing a false choice and that the promise of autonomy would be matched by real, accessible care. For those reasons, I hope that members can support amendment 154.
I do not intend to detain members for long by speaking on the broader issues and themes that surround amendment 157, because many of them were raised during the proceedings yesterday evening when we discussed the important role that social work and multidisciplinary approaches should play in the process.
The bill’s current wording states that a registered medical practitioner carrying out an assessment must
“consider making enquiries of a health professional, social care professional or social work professional with qualifications in, or experience of, a matter relevant to the person being assessed”.
Amendment 157 would instead make it a requirement for a registered medical practitioner carrying out an assessment
“to make enquiries of at least one health professional, social care professional or social work professional who holds qualifications or has demonstrable experience relevant to the condition, care needs or circumstances of the person being assessed”.
At a very basic level, my amendment seeks to strengthen the assessment process by replacing the discretionary power that is in the bill as amended with a mandatory requirement. That would ensure that assessments were being informed by appropriate multidisciplinary expertise. It would promote greater consistency in practice and reduce the risk that relevant safeguarding or welfare considerations might be overlooked. I lodged amendment 157 because of all the issues that I have raised and the need for expert professionals to be part of the assessment process of individuals who might demonstrate certain vulnerabilities.
I remind members of my declaration of interest relating to the support that I receive from various groups in relation to the bill. Unlike Mr O’Kane, I cannot offer members the reassurance that I will not detain them for a while, given the number of amendments in the group, but I will do my best.
My amendment 26 reflects the fact that the drafting of section 7(1)(zc) is not quite right, as it requires the assessing doctors to “enquire about and discuss” an adult’s reasons for wishing to be provided with assistance to die. That could be read more widely than just asking the adult themselves, and it could potentially require the assessing doctors to investigate more widely. That was not the intention of the provision and nor would it be appropriate. Amendment 26 would adjust that wording to make the intent clear. Amendments 79, 81 and 85 would then ensure that, where known, those reasons are recorded in the relevant schedules.
Amendment 29 would make it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that once the second declaration has been signed, it is up to the terminally ill person to decide whether to ask for the substance to be provided to them and when.
Amendments 30 and 31 are technical amendments that are consequential to amendments that were made at stage 2. Section 7(1)(b) sets out the information that a registered medical practitioner must provide to the person during an assessment. At stage 2, a requirement was added to inform the person that they may request a social work assessment, but it referred to a subsection that was not agreed to. Amendment 31 would remove the incorrect cross-reference. Amendment 30 is a technical amendment that seeks to maintain consistency in terminology when referring to social work professionals in the bill.
Brian Whittle’s amendments 150 and 304 would mean that a terminally ill adult who has made a first declaration may request to be provided with a palliative care support plan, with minimum requirements to be set out in regulations. I have always been clear that it is not a case of either/or in relation to palliative care and assisted dying, as international evidence clearly shows. Therefore, I support those amendments.
Does Mr McArthur acknowledge that, without first-rate palliative care being available, the bill does not offer terminally ill people a real choice? I know the importance of that point from my own experience. I have seen people coming into the hospice in extreme pain and distress and wishing to be put out of their misery but, within a few days, when their pain was under control and their quality of life had improved dramatically, they wished to live again. Why does the bill not take every step to ensure that people have the opportunity to have not just a discussion but a guarantee of access to such care?
I think that the bill provides safeguards in that regard. The discussions that would need to take place with the individual who is requesting the choice of an assisted death would have to include discussions of palliative and other care options. As we see in other jurisdictions that have introduced laws of this kind, those discussions demonstrate an improved engagement with palliative care that is not there at the moment. I see no reason why that cannot be the case here.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment.
I worked with Brian Whittle on amendments 22, 34, 34A, 78, 78A, 83 and 83A. I thank him very much for his constructive approach on those amendments and I encourage members to support them. Amendments 34A and 78A are consequential to Bob Doris’s amendment 23, which requires a doctor to be satisfied that any eligible patient has been offered or provided with palliative care. As I have said, the interaction with palliative care is extremely important, so I support amendment 23.
Daniel Johnson’s amendment 153 would require the registered medical practitioner who is carrying out the assessment under section 6(2) or the independent assessment under section 6(4) to have met the person who made the declaration on more than one occasion. I would expect that to happen in the vast majority of cases, not least for the reasons that Christine Grahame mentioned in her intervention. I am concerned about removing discretion from doctors who are involved in making decisions that are appropriate to the circumstances of the individual. Although there is obvious value in in-person consultations, mandating them in primary legislation reduces the flexibility that some terminally ill people may need for whatever reason. I believe that it would be more appropriate for clinical practice guidance to strongly recommend face-to-face consultations and to permit consultations to be held virtually only in exceptional circumstances and where appropriate.
To return to what the member said about remote consultations taking place in exceptional circumstances, the concern is that the practitioner cannot see who is out of view of the camera, and that is where concerns about coercion come in. Can Mr McArthur detail how that can be mitigated? I am torn on the issue. My default position is that I think that such consultations should be held in person, because I am just not clear how the issue that I raise can be mitigated.
That is a valid concern. As I said, I would expect consultations to take place in person in the vast majority of instances. However, as Christine Grahame amplified in her intervention, there are likely to be many occasions on which such conversations take place, and there may be instances in which the medical professional feels that it is appropriate for a remote consultation to take place. Nevertheless, the possibility that there would be no face-to-face interaction with the patient seems to me to be vanishingly small. However, I think that it is more appropriate to capture that in the clinical guidance than in the bill. As I said, it would be reasonable for clinical practice guidance to strongly recommend face-to-face consultations and to permit them virtually only where appropriate and in exceptional circumstances.
On Douglas Ross’s amendment 154, I fully support terminally ill people having access to appropriate advice and support about palliative care, and I am sympathetic to the aim of the amendment. However, as drafted, section 7(1)(a)(iii) requires any doctor undertaking an assessment to discuss and explain to the person
“any palliative, hospice or other care available, including symptom management and psychological support”.
They must also inform the person
“that they can be referred for a palliative care assessment to explore whether any additional support could be provided to them”,
and must make a statement on that, as per schedule 2.
As such, the bill already includes provision to ensure that explanation and discussion about palliative care are available, as is referral for an assessment. Doctors already keep records as a matter of practice and in accordance with requirements. However, although I am not persuaded that amendment 154 is necessary, due to the bill’s other provisions, I am content to accept it should the Parliament consider it necessary and helpful.
Brian Whittle’s amendment 155 would add that the independent RMP could not have consulted with the co-ordinating RMP on the case; and would not have been provided with access to any notes prepared by the co-ordinating doctor. There is a risk that the amendment could be counterproductive. In practice, the co-ordinating doctor may record in the patient’s notes concerns or contextual information that highlight important aspects of the person’s condition. Those notes could help the independent doctor to make a fully informed assessment. Preventing them doctor from consulting the co-ordinating doctor’s notes could mean that that crucial context is missed.
Liam McArthur and I have discussed this at length. My concern is that we are asking two independent medical practitioners, who—we would assume—have a high level of expertise, to come to the same conclusion about the same set of medical conditions. I introduced the amendments because they would ensure that one practitioner could not influence the other.
Brian Whittle is right to observe that we had that conversation at some length at stage 2. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment, which is to ensure that the process being undertaken is independent, but, for the reasons that I have suggested, denying the independent doctor access to those notes is not necessarily in the interests of the patient. As it stands, they are safeguarded under clinical practice.
Paul O’Kane’s amendment 157 would make it mandatory for doctors to make inquiries of at least one health, social care or social work professional with experience directly relevant to the person’s condition, rather than their just having to consider doing so. Section 7 as drafted already requires that, where it is considered appropriate, the assessing doctor make inquiries of health professionals who have recently provided care to the person. They will know the person and have an understanding of their circumstances, enriching some assessments. I am confident that the provisions in the bill will ensure that appropriate inquiries are made with experienced professionals, while allowing for the exercise of professional judgment. Therefore, I do not support amendment 157.
Mr McArthur seems to accept the broad concept that such inquiries are an important innovation for how we understand all the circumstances that surround a person’s life and their decision. I wonder why he thinks that they should not be mandatory. If there is nothing to worry about and we agree that they are a positive thing, surely they should be done as a matter of curse. If there are no concerns, that would be identified quickly and the person could move on.
As Paul O’Kane and I discussed in exchanges yesterday, I admit at this stage that in the bill as introduced to the Parliament, one of the obvious omissions was that of recognising the importance of the involvement of social work and social care in the assessments that would be required of medical professionals. I have a concern that we seem to be lurching between banning things and making them mandatory, which crowds out the ability of those who have the experience, training and qualifications to exercise medical judgment.
In relation to Bob Doris’s amendments 28 and 32, although the provisions in the bill were drafted with the aim of centring the professional judgment of medical practitioners, I appreciate the additional safeguard that those amendments seek to provide and I am content to support them.
My concern about amendments 161 and 163, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is that mandating specialist assessments in every case would remove the ability for doctors to take into account individual circumstances, including when there is no clear basis for referral. The effect of the amendments would be to add an unnecessary burden on many applicants about whom there is no doubt as to their terminal illness or their capacity. Thus, there would be no additional safeguard. International evidence does not support that approach and I do not support those amendments.
On Jackie Baillie’s amendment 164, I am wholly sympathetic to the aim of ensuring that we safeguard young adults in such a situation, as well as those with diagnoses that are fluctuating in nature. I also appreciate Jackie Baillie’s flexible approach, which relies on professional judgment about the degree of involvement from psychiatry and social work professionals to support assessments. The approach is proportionate, especially given the extremely low number of people likely to be affected, and I am content to support amendment 164.
16:15
Similarly, I am inclined to support Bob Doris’s amendments 165 to 168, which would require a specialist palliative care referral to be made in instances in which a patient has not been offered or provided care, or is motivated by the prospect of uncontrolled symptoms. Those amendments would also allow a patient to decline such a referral without being denied access to assisted dying. I think that that strikes a reasonable balance.
On Miles Briggs’s amendment 169, although my bill already requires assessing doctors to inform the person that they may be referred for a social work assessment, the inclusion of such a requirement in relation to mental health services would add an additional safeguard that I believe is both sensible and welcome.
On amendment 170 and the related consequential amendments 300 and 301, I recognise the important role that social work and mental health services play and the value that they can add in the various circumstances that are listed in amendment 170 and in ensuring that protections are in place for young adults. However, I am also conscious that the proposed regulating power in relation to practitioner training may raise the same concerns as other training provisions in the bill, which should be dealt with under the section 104 order. In addition, the Scottish Government has raised deliverability and potential equalities issues that would arise from a difference in treatment on the basis of age, as well as legislative competence issues. In the light of that, although I very much accept the principle, I ask Mr Briggs not to move amendment 170. If he does, I ask Parliament not to support it.
On Fulton MacGregor’s amendment 171 and consequential amendment 306, protecting vulnerable adults is of the utmost importance, so I am very sympathetic to Mr MacGregor’s aims. However, the bill already includes clear and strong safeguards to ensure voluntariness and capacity, by providing for two independent medical assessments, specific checks for coercion and referrals to a psychiatrist if there are any doubts about someone’s capacity.
The bill seeks to put in place a legal framework that exceeds what is in place to protect people who make other end-of-life decisions. It would allow an assessing doctor to make inquiries and to seek the views of health, social care and social work professionals and those who have provided or are providing care to the person, as the health professional considers necessary. Fulton MacGregor rightly pressed for the inclusion of that provision at stage 2, and I am grateful to him for that.
How would the member address the fact that many of the professionals he has described—GPs, social workers and others—have said that they would find it difficult to make judgments about capacity and coercion within the existing structures?
I am not sure that that is what the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee heard in the stage 1 process. As I have said, we can see such a system operating in other jurisdictions. The capacity and coercion assessments that are routinely made in relation to other types of medical treatment would be made in this context. I fully accept that further and on-going training would be required. Yesterday, we touched on some of the issues in relation to coercion. We are developing our understanding in areas such as coercive and controlling behaviour. All those things could be factored into the training that is already provided.
I believe that the approach that is taken in the bill is a more appropriate approach than the blanket requirement that Fulton MacGregor’s amendment 171 proposes. I am also mindful of the Government’s position, which was that similar amendments at stage 2 presented a deliverability challenge, as legal and operational issues would cut across existing duties, which, in turn, could lead to duplication and potentially disproportionate intervention.
With regard to Audrey Nicoll’s amendment 173, I consider that the existing reporting requirements in the bill are comprehensive, and that amendment 173 would duplicate many of those.
I cannot support Alasdair Allan’s amendments 176 and 179. The bill already requires the undertaking of multiple assessments, which, in practice, clinicians will normally conduct in person. As I said earlier, placing a rigid requirement in primary legislation that assessments must be carried out in person would remove flexibility in circumstances in which remote consultation may be clinically appropriate. Although I would expect the vast majority of assessments to be conducted in person, I am cautious of adding an explicit requirement that could create a potential barrier in a specific future case in which more flexibility may be necessary and felt appropriate. As Alasdair Allan and I both know and accept, given the constituencies that we represent, decisions on when online consultations with patients are and are not appropriate are rightly left to medical judgment.
Daniel Johnson’s amendment 9 would require, if the assessing doctor is not satisfied that a person who is seeking an assisted death is eligible or is acting voluntarily, that a statement be made to that effect and provided to the patient. Requiring practitioners—
Will the member give way?
Daniel Johnson might be pre-empting me, but I will give way to him.
I am very grateful to Liam McArthur for giving way and to parliamentary staff for knowing our work better than we do. I point out that amendments 194 and 195 would mean that the statements are recorded in line with other statements, so I had actually done a more comprehensive job than I realised. I hope that that reassures members; of course, I would not want to mislead Parliament on such an important matter.
I am grateful to Mr Johnson for raising that as an intervention on me and not a false point of order.
Requiring practitioners to record and explain decisions where eligibility criteria are not met will also help patients to understand the outcome of their assessment and the reasons for it, which is in line with patient-centred care, so I support amendment 9 and the consequential amendment 194. I also support Daniel Johnson’s amendments 183 and 183A, with consequential amendments 185 and 195, which add detail and require an additional statement concerning the relationship between the assessing doctors and the patient, as well as the rationale given if a doctor reaches a different conclusion on a patient’s eligibility from a previous doctor.
I cannot support Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 184 and 307, which would prevent a person who is assessed as ineligible from making another request for 12 months. Apart from anything else, that ignores the fact that a lot can change in an individual’s disease or condition over such a period.
I am inclined to support Bob Doris’s amendments 37 to 40, 60 and 67, which would require a co-ordinating medical practitioner to produce a comprehensive report on the assessment, which will in turn facilitate extensive data gathering with Public Health Scotland.
However, I do not consider Stephen Kerr’s amendment 186 necessary. The bill already makes sufficient provision for medical practitioners to seek advice or input from other professionals with relevant knowledge and expertise where they consider it appropriate. That, of course, is in addition to the existing expert knowledge of the assessing doctors themselves. Referral to relevant experts is already a well-established feature of clinical practice.
Sue Webber’s amendments 191 and 192 would also add unnecessary barriers, in my opinion, by requiring further assessments after both doctors have undertaken independent assessments and confirmed that they are satisfied that the criteria have been met. Given that the bill provides that, at the point of witnessing the second declaration, the co-ordinating doctor must remain satisfied with the criteria that are set out in section 8(1), I see no purpose for the further requirement, which would simply be an obstacle rather than a meaningful safeguard.
On Alasdair Allan’s amendment 188, although there is value to the second declaration process being done in person, again mandating it in primary legislation reduces the flexibility that some terminally ill people may require. The bill would require the declaration to be witnessed, so that would remove telephone consultation but may include video consultation. Again, robust clinical guidelines are the best way of safeguarding that part of the process, so I do not support amendment 188.
I am content to support Jackie Baillie’s amendment 95, which would require any information obtained from inquiries of social care, social work and healthcare professionals to be shared with a person’s GP and included in medical records.
As regards Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 196, the bill would already require multiple independent assessments, and the process cannot proceed if a person is found ineligible. Clinicians would be required by the bill to refer the person to a specialist if there are any doubts about the person’s illness or capacity. Amendment 196 would risk duplicating those safeguards and adding unnecessary complexity to an already robust process without changing the fact that if any of the clinicians involved have doubts about a person’s illness or capacity, that person is not eligible to proceed with an assisted death. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 196.
Finally, although Liz Smith’s amendment 197, on recording of cancelled declarations, is well intentioned, it seems unnecessary due to the existing systems of professional standards. I am also conscious that professional conduct matters and deciding on conduct breaches are within the GMC’s remit, and that each regulatory body will have its own system for such matters, which could raise the prospect of legislative competence issues. As such, what Liz Smith’s amendment 197 seeks to achieve can and will be met, so I do not support it—although her intention is laudable.
The interesting and perhaps liberating aspect of our deliberations yesterday, today and probably tomorrow is that we are speaking very much on the basis of our own positions.
I want to reflect on Liam McArthur’s responses to many of the amendments in the group. There was an exchange between Christine Grahame and Daniel Johnson about the frequency with which a doctor might see a patient in a life-threatening situation. It strikes me that, in this debate, there is an overriding assumption that everything will happen. It is assumed that palliative care will be on offer on an equal basis to any patient in any given situation in any part of Scotland, but that is simply not the case.
I certainly echo Stephen Kerr’s sentiments about the nature of the debate. Some members may find it liberating, while the whips may disagree.
However, with regard to the assumptions that are made, I point to the evidence on the way in which such laws work in practice elsewhere. We may disagree about the principle, but members can look at the data that has been gathered on who accesses assisted dying, with what conditions and for what reasons, and how the safeguards work in practice. These are not assertions—they draw on the evidence.
That actually goes to the heart of the issue, because, when we look at the evidence, including the case studies that are offered to us from other jurisdictions, we see that it is not quite as black and white as Liam McArthur makes out. Some of the generalisations that have been made about some of the evidence that has been offered are not helpful in our consideration of the bill.
As I said, the assumptions undermine the possibility of us making good law in this area, because they assume a homogenous fairness. For example, to go back to an issue that another member raised in relation to one of the amendments on palliative care, equal access to such care does not currently exist for people across Scotland. Until that situation is remedied, I feel that we are in very troubled waters.
I am looking back at some evidence that I have seen from elsewhere. A report called “Assisted Dying/Assisted Suicide” by the Health and Social Care Committee at Westminster notes:
“The Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation at King’s College pointed to examples of findings from Canada that ‘palliative care resources were disproportionately consumed by MaiD requests, while non-MaiD patients had reduced access to palliative care’.”
Does that sound fair to Mr Kerr?
It does not, and it creates the shades of grey that we should accept exist in the evidence that is available to us from other jurisdictions.
The 14-month House of Commons inquiry found no evidence
“of palliative and end-of-life care deteriorating … following the introduction of”
assisted dying in other jurisdictions. Indeed, the inquiry observed that it had often acted as a catalyst for improvement.
Well, there is a perfect illustration of the issue. We had an intervention from Sue Webber, who quoted academic research that suggests that there is such evidence, and then we had an intervention to say that there is not. That highlights the issue that is at the heart of some of the assumptions and generalisations, which we should beware of.
At stage 1 and in our deliberations throughout the bill process, there has been a general consensus that we want access to palliative care to be increased, as Mr Kerr set out. However, does he agree that not a single line in the Scottish spending review identifies further resource for palliative care and that there is no additional money in the budget that the Parliament has just passed to expand such care? It is a matter of looking at the facts, which show that an expansion of the availability of palliative care is not going to happen.
I could not agree more with what Michael Marra has just said. These are the troubled waters that we are in. As I said, we are talking about a set of ideals that do not exist. There are no plans to create such a palliative care offer across Scotland on an equal basis and, until there are such plans, the consideration of measures such as those in the bill is fraught with moral difficulty. Until that situation arises, we would not be giving people fair choices at all. That has been reiterated by a number of members who have spoken to amendments not only in the current group, but in previous groups.
I will now refer directly to my amendments in the group. This group of amendments relates to an issue that Daniel Johnson raised in his remarks: the fact that, fundamentally, this comes down to doctors’ judgments. We are talking about how a request for an assisted death would be assessed. Under section 6 of the bill, a single registered medical practitioner may be required to make a life-and-death assessment. We have heard a back-and-forth debate on whether that should be an in-person assessment. To be frank, I find it mind blowing that, on something as vital as this, we would not insist on that. Ross Greer made a timely intervention about that, and it is why I lodged my amendments in the group.
16:30
Under the bill, referral to a specialist would happen only if the practitioner believed that there was doubt about eligibility or capacity. That is a heavy burden to place on a doctor and it is a thin safeguard for a decision of such consequence. Amendments 161 and 163 seek to correct that by replacing discretion with clear requirements. Under those amendments, every person who underwent an assessment would be referred to appropriately qualified specialists who could confirm the nature of the person’s terminal illness.
I remind members of evidence that I think should weigh on our minds, which has been referred to previously. Professor Scott Murray, who is an emeritus professor of palliative care at the University of Edinburgh, has pointed out that the accuracy of prognosis in such cases can be as low as 23 per cent. I hope that members are familiar with his column that appeared in The Times, in which he warned:
“While those facing death cannot access the high-quality palliative care they need, such legislation risks becoming a simple and dangerous cost-saving measure.”
Those are heavy and troubling words.
My amendments seek to ensure that the individual would be referred to appropriately qualified specialists. One would confirm the nature of the terminal illness and another would examine questions of capacity, where that was relevant. That matters because such situations are rarely straightforward. As I have highlighted, prognosis can be uncertain and capacity can fluctuate. Depression can exist alongside serious illness and the circumstances surrounding a request may involve pressures and, certainly, vulnerabilities. I cannot imagine a more vulnerable individual than someone who has received a diagnosis of a terminal condition, and some of the vulnerabilities may be added to by things that are not immediately visible.
If the law is to permit assisted suicide at all, we must have safeguards that are designed for the most difficult cases and not for the easiest and, perhaps, more straightforward cases, although I hesitate to use that term. When the law contemplates the ending of life, the protections around the decision must be stronger than our uncertainties and not weaker than them. Specialist scrutiny should not depend on whether a doctor happens to feel uncertain on a particular day. Rather, it should be part of the process from the beginning.
My amendments would move the bill away from relying on a single practitioner’s judgment towards a process that was informed by specialist expertise and proper professional scrutiny. I took that away from what I thought was an excellent contribution yesterday from Michael Matheson, who drew on his experience related to another piece of legislation. I felt that he made a forceful contribution to our consideration of the issue.
Stephen Kerr said that the judgment should rest with two doctors, as the bill currently proposes. At no point in his contribution has he said that the person whose judgment matters is the patient or that it is their choice to make. I very much hope that the member has good intentions and that he is not attempting to set an impossible bar that cannot be achieved. He is moving the decision further and further away from the patient, yet it is the patient’s decision that we wish to enable. The patient must be fully informed and fully consenting, but their decision is the important one. [Applause.]
The wellbeing and welfare of the patient is at the heart of my amendments. I am at a bit of a loss as to why some colleagues felt that Lorna Slater’s intervention was somehow a contribution that merited their applause. To be frank, I am not suggesting anything other than that we should be extremely careful about how we scrutinise this process, and that we view it as a process, rather than two doctors with the heavy burden of making those decisions. I do not think that that is fair on the doctors, and I certainly do not think that it is fair on the patient. I am taking a holistic view of how an individual may reach a decision about requesting and applying for assisted suicide.
Amendment 186 addresses a related concern. The bill would leave doctors largely on their own when carrying out assessments, yet the questions that they may face can be extraordinarily difficult. For example, they may involve concerns about mental health, the possibility of coercion or complex family circumstances. Amendment 186 would establish an independent panel of experts to provide guidance in those situations. The panel would include expertise in psychiatry, palliative care and safeguarding. Where there were doubts about capacity, mental health concerns or the possibility of coercion or undue influence, the case would have to be referred to that panel.
In further answer to Lorna Slater’s intervention, I note that that is deliberate, because I want us to keep our eyes firmly on the patient and their concerns, and pressure on vulnerable people is not always obvious. A person may speak about autonomy while quietly feeling that they have become a burden. Those arguments are being rehearsed over and over again in our debates on amendments to the bill, because they should concern us. Someone may appear calm while experiencing treatable depression. Those are human realities that clinicians encounter every day. For decisions of this magnitude, it is not reasonable to leave a single doctor to carry out that responsibility alone.
Some will point out that establishing such a panel would come with a cost, and that is true. However, when the stakes involve human life, the cost of proper oversight is not an optional luxury; it is part of legislating responsibly.
Taken together, my amendments in the group would not simply add procedural detail but address a fundamental weakness in the bill. They would introduce specialist scrutiny, independent advice and clearer safeguards where the bill currently relies too heavily on individual judgment. I repeat my concern about the nature of many of the assumptions that we are making. For decisions such as this, which cannot be reversed, the Parliament should insist on nothing less.
I call Jackie Baillie to speak to amendment 164 and other amendments in the group.
I will concentrate specifically on two amendments. I will start with amendment 164, which I have lodged on behalf of Children’s Hospices Across Scotland.
The amendment focuses on ensuring that young people under the age of 25 with complex or unstable conditions receive specialist multidisciplinary input during assisted dying assessments. That protection is needed because we know that young people with serious conditions often have enhanced safeguarding needs. We know that their capacity can fluctuate, that communication methods may vary, and that decisions may involve significant family or social dynamics. Access to specialist psychiatry and social work would ensure that risks are fully explored and fully addressed.
Given that context, amendment 164 would require doctors to involve psychiatry and social work professionals when assessing young adults under the age of 25 who have an unpredictable or fluctuating condition. That would mean that there is appropriate and essential multidisciplinary support and specialist input for young adults under the age of 25, and it would provide a consistent national approach to ensure that the vulnerabilities of young adults are not overlooked. I commend amendment 164 to Parliament.
I will move on to the second amendment in group 7 that I wish to speak to. I forget the number of the amendment, but it will come to me—it is amendment 95, which I have lodged on behalf of the Royal College of Nursing Scotland.
Section 7(1)(za) and (zb) provide that
“a registered medical practitioner carrying out an assessment under section 6 must”
make or consider making enquiries of professionals who are involved in the individual’s care or who have relevant expertise. The RCN agrees that the doctor responsible for making the assessment should be able to draw on the expertise and experience of the multidisciplinary team; however, it calls for a provision to be added to the bill to ensure that those inquiries are properly recorded. It believes that that is important should the results of the assessment be challenged or scrutinised at some point in the future.
Amendment 95 would introduce a new section, after section 12, which would apply where such inquiries have been made of other health, social care or social work professionals. Information would need to be recorded on what inquiries were made and the name and profession of the person who was asked, along with
“a summary of the information provided by that”
person. That information would be recorded in the adult’s medical records, which aligns with the requirement for patient declarations and medical practitioners’ statements to be recorded in an individual’s medical records.
I am sympathetic to amendment 95 and I am listening with interest. Listening to the information that would have to be captured and written down persuades me that my amendment 37, on the establishment of a medical practitioner’s report, where all of that information would be captured in one place and then put into medical records, is even more important. Would Jackie Baillie agree?
I absolutely would. I also make the comment that this group has a huge number of amendments, which I think is a measure of the concern that we absolutely get this right. It is not just Bob Doris’s amendment 37 that is worthy of support; the RCN has noted that there is overlap with amendment 173, in the name of Audrey Nicoll, which would require a registered medical practitioner who is carrying out an assessment under section 6 to
“prepare and retain a written record”.
Although amendment 173 would require all inquiries made under section 7(1)(za) and (zb) to be recorded, it would not require a summary of the information provided by other professionals to be recorded. The RCN’s position—and my position—is to ask MSPs to support my amendment 95 and Audrey Nicoll’s amendment 173.
I welcome Liam McArthur’s support for the amendments that I have addressed.
Like Jackie Baillie, I have worked with Children’s Hospices Across Scotland to lodge amendments 169, 170, 300 and 301, which would ensure that anyone who is being assessed for assisted dying is made aware that support is available, including social work or mental health services. The amendments would strengthen protections for under-25s by making certain referrals automatic, including a requirement to refer anyone under 25 for social work or mental health support if certain indicators are present, including concerns about capacity, fluctuating or unpredictable diagnoses, safeguarding issues, communication needs, multiple disadvantages or limited or no social support.
The amendments would also allow ministers, following consultation with relevant professional bodies, to set additional rules about the training and qualifications needed for practitioners who make those referrals.
My amendments would ensure that the Parliament can set clear regulations that support safe and consistent referral processes for young adults under the age of 25. Importantly, I believe that they would maintain coherence across the bill and ensure that there are no gaps in ministerial powers.
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests—I am registered with the Scottish Social Services Council.
I will focus my remarks on my amendments 171 and 306, not least to stay on the good side of the business manager. I place on record my thanks to the Scottish Association of Social Work, which has been pivotal in bringing the amendments to fruition.
Supporting amendment 171 would ensure that social work services are encoded as a statutory safeguard within the assessment process for assisted dying. Whatever view members across the chamber hold on assisted dying, we all share a duty to ensure that the safeguards in the bill meet the essential minimum required to protect those who might be vulnerable. Where a decision is irreversible, our safeguards must be beyond question.
Scotland already has a strong, carefully constructed legal framework that is designed to protect adults who might be vulnerable due to incapacity, mental ill health, abuse or coercion. The Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 are all key pieces of legislation that form the backbone of Scotland’s safeguarding system.
16:45
I commend Fulton MacGregor on his amendments.Social workers are versed in spotting coercion, and we heard from Michael Matheson yesterday about how critical such long-term relationships are. Does Fulton MacGregor feel—as I think that he does from his amendments—that involving social workers will inevitably mean that safeguarding issues are more quickly identified than by some healthcare professionals, who might meet somebody for only a short period of time?
I will come on to that point.
The acts that I mentioned were designed to ensure that, when decisions carry profound consequences, they are made with proper scrutiny, appropriate expertise and a full understanding of a person’s circumstances. However, the bill as it is currently drafted risks bypassing the safeguarding structures that the Parliament has already put in place.
Medical practitioners would be central to the assisted dying process—no one is doubting that—but they cannot be expected to assess alone the complex issues of social risk, coercion or safeguarding that may shape a person’s decision. Those factors are social, relational and often deeply contextual.
Social workers and safeguarding professionals hold expertise in identifying coercion, undue influence, domestic abuse, financial exploitation and situations whereby individuals may feel pressure. Those pressures might be from others, from circumstances or even from the self-belief that they are a burden.
Local authorities also hold statutory duties and records that might be directly relevant to an assessment of a person’s capacity and vulnerability. Without consultation, medical practitioners would simply not have access to that information.
Members should consider what that could mean in practice. A person seeking assisted dying might already be subject to safeguarding inquiries, capacity assessments or protective measures under existing law. However, if the co-ordinating medical practitioner would not be mandated to consult the local authority, those safeguards could theoretically remain unknown, which cannot be considered safe.
Amendments that were agreed to at stage 2 recognised the importance of multidisciplinary input by allowing referral to social services. I note that the member in charge of the bill, whose engagement on these matters I welcome, has stated his belief that the discretionary inclusion of social services would be a proportionate measure. However, I disagree, because I do not believe that leaving such a referral solely to the judgment of the co-ordinating medical practitioner would resolve the problem. Medical practitioners cannot reasonably be expected to determine whether social work input is required if they do not have the information or the training that is needed to identify safeguarding risks in the first place.
Evidence from jurisdictions that are examining similar legislation increasingly highlights the need for multidisciplinary assessment. The recent review by the assisted dying citizens jury and the review panel in Jersey concluded that clinicians alone cannot always identify coercion, safeguarding dynamics or complex capacity issues without input from professionals with expertise in social care and safeguarding.
The Parliament had a lengthy debate yesterday on the existence of coercion. We heard a range of views on the prevalence of coercion and the potential for coercion in other jurisdictions. Whatever side of that argument members may be on, we must try to avoid having confirmation bias, whether that is that coercion is not an issue or that it is a problem that cannot be overcome. If practitioners do not have the tools and resources to identify coercion, it will self-evidently be difficult to confirm that it is taking place at all.
As we all know, coercion is rarely obvious. It might not present as an overt force or threat, and it might instead appear through subtle family dynamics, emotional dependency, financial pressure or, as was mentioned earlier, an internalised belief that one’s life has become a burden.
Coercion can also be systemic. Societal narratives about the cost of care, the strain on families or the value of independence can shape a person’s decision in ways that are deeply powerful and extremely difficult to detect in a purely clinical assessment. For that reason, safeguarding against coercion requires multidisciplinary scrutiny.
My amendment 171 would establish a simple but essential safeguard, which is a duty for the co-ordinating medical practitioner to consult the local authority and ensure that relevant information about safeguarding, capacity assessments or existing statutory processes is taken into account.
If members do not think that coercion is a major issue, they should know that the amendment would give added peace of mind to those who believe that it is. If members are concerned about the costs of such a proposal, I would note that, in most cases, it would amount to a simple background check. If nothing is found, there would be no need for further social service involvement. However, if something is found, would that not make the proposal worth while? Is that not what we are trying to identify?
This may also lead to arguments about resource implications. However, I want members to note that the Scottish Association of Social Work, Social Work Scotland and the Scottish Social Services Council welcome the amendments. In fact, they insist that we vote for the amendments today, which I will come back to. They welcome the additional work—minimal as it would be—because they believe, as I do, that our primary consideration should be safety, not finance.
Another argument is about autonomy and whether someone would wish for a social work referral. I do not believe that the amendment would impede a person’s autonomy, as a person’s choice can be truly autonomous only if it is made free from coercion, free from hidden pressures and with full understanding of their circumstances. Ensuring consultation with social work services would allow medical practitioners to make decisions with the fullest possible picture. That would strengthen the integrity of the process—
Yesterday, it was mentioned in the chamber that the education on coercion that is provided in Western Australia takes five minutes and comprises a couple of PowerPoint slides. I followed that up with a former Western Australia MP, Dr Sally Talbot, who got back to me at 11.05 last night after I messaged her at 11 o’clock. She told me that Western Australia’s coercion education consists of up to 10 hours of training, including nine e‑modules. She also mentioned that those participating are already experienced doctors and that those taking the exam must achieve a 90 per cent score.
I wanted to highlight that to show that coercion is taken really seriously in Australia. However, a broader issue is including the wider multidisciplinary team in that. Does Fulton MacGregor agree and acknowledge that coercion is not taken lightly in the Western Australia model?
I thank the member for painting a picture of the Western Australia model, and I welcome her putting that on the record.
The point that I have been making in my contribution today is that coercion is a very complex area, and we have heard that across the board. I think that my amendments today would add another safeguard to the bill, and would strengthen the integrity of the process and the confidence that the public can have in it.
I agree with many of the amendments that Fulton MacGregor has lodged—indeed, I spoke to that yesterday evening.
I do not mean to conduct a debate through Fulton MacGregor in response to Emma Harper’s intervention, but—[Interruption.] I do not think that this sort of barracking is very helpful, given the seriousness of the issues that we are discussing.
I will not get into the debate about the Western Australian issue, because I did not raise it in the chamber. However, if we are talking about exam-level conditions for training—and all the things that Emma Harper has laid out, which she says that she has evidence of—none of that is in the bill. There is no requirement in the bill for education for professionals at any level. I would also put on the record that my amendment, which seeks to bring in mandatory training for practitioners, will potentially not be backed.
Does Fulton MacGregor, as a social work professional himself, recognise the concerns that social workers are raising that, if his amendments are not agreed to, the social work profession would not have confidence in the legislation—not because of their stance on assisted dying itself, but because the system would be wrong?
I thank the member for that intervention and for taking the opportunity to put on the record what he wanted to. I recognise what he said at the end of his intervention, and I will come to that.
Without the safeguards that are being proposed here, we risk creating a system that overlooks the very protections that Scottish law has spent decades building up.
Members may differ on the principle of assisted dying—we can hear that in the chamber—but surely we can all agree that, if the law is to exist, it must operate with the highest standards of safety, scrutiny and care. When Parliament legislates on a matter of life and death, we must do so with the full weight of our safeguarding system behind us.
As Paul O’Kane mentioned, a joint briefing to MSPs that was circulated by the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers, the Scottish Association of Social Work and Social Work Scotland, states that, without support for amendment 171, the bill would not reach a minimum safe threshold from a social work perspective and would be unsafe for the people of Scotland. In addition, the chief executive of the Scottish Social Services Council, Maree Allison, has specifically said that amendment 171 is the most direct way to ensure that the bill aligns with existing safeguarding frameworks and avoids preventable harm.
I sympathise with the member’s broad desire for safeguards. However, on a point of clarification, my reading of amendment 171 is that it would require a referral even if the patient confirms that they do not have a social worker. I am not sure about the operability of that, particularly given that it would require the council to return the information within what is described as “a reasonable period”, which would be set by ministers. Given that local government in Scotland is not famous for smooth and rapid bureaucratic processes, I am concerned about the operability of the amendment, particularly if it would apply to every patient, including those who do not have a social worker. Could the member clarify that?
I am happy to do so. We think that, in the majority of cases, the consultant would check with social work. That would be a simple check of the records to find out whether the person is known and whether there are any safeguarding concerns. Ross Greer is right to raise that point, but we do not see that as a concern. All the social work agencies have told us that they feel that they can easily manage that in their current systems.
For the reasons that I have given, I urge colleagues across the chamber, whether they are for or against the bill, to consider my arguments and to please vote for my amendment 171, and for amendment 306, which is consequential.
Before I speak to my amendment 173, I say that I fully support Fulton MacGregor’s amendment 171. It is a practical provision that shows the intersection between issues such as adult support and protection and observing the rights of adults with incapacity, on the one hand, and the legislation that will be enacted should the bill be passed, on the other.
Amendment 173 is designed to improve transparency and accountability and to promote robust record keeping. It would introduce a mandatory requirement for registered medical practitioners who carry out assessments under section 6 to prepare and retain a comprehensive written record of the assessment process. That would cover all inquiries made of other professionals; discussions with the person being assessed; explanations that have been provided regarding diagnosis, prognosis, treatment options, palliative care and the nature of any substance that might be provided; and advice given, referrals made and the clinical reasoning for decisions, including any instances in which inquiries or referrals were not completed.
There is a high prevalence of people choosing to die because they feel that they are a burden on others. For example, in Oregon and Canada, close to 50 per cent of people cite that as one of their main reasons for wanting to take their life early under assisted dying provisions. That raises serious questions about the prevalence of coercion. There are also issues such as the postcode lottery that exists in the provision of palliative care. Some people have excellent care at the point of need, but others receive too little, too late. Given such factors, it is incumbent on us to ensure that robust information is recorded so that the potential reasons driving the choice of an assisted death have been discussed fully; so that all possible help is provided to ensure that someone is not driven to take their life when they otherwise would not consider it; and so that the process does not become a tick-box exercise.
We have heard evidence from abroad of what is called “doctor shopping”. That is where patients are turned down for assisted dying because doctors who know them and their conditions well deem that they do not qualify, but those patients keep applying to different doctors until they find one who applies the eligibility criteria liberally—for example, by approving a disabled person who has many comorbidities.
That might explain why, in places where the law has not technically expanded beyond the terminal illness eligibility criteria, people with non-terminal conditions have nonetheless been approved for assisted dying. In Oregon, Government data shows that people with conditions such as arthritis and anorexia have been approved. An anorexia charity has found from whistleblowing doctors across the US at least 60 confirmed cases of people struggling with anorexia—mainly young women—being given drugs to end their lives under assisted dying laws.
17:00
I have been listening carefully to what Audrey Nicoll has said. Does she recognise that the situation in the jurisdictions that she is talking about—where people go “doctor shopping”, as she labelled it—is not the same as it is here because of our national health service? In those places abroad, the vast majority of access to doctors, medical care and hospital care is private, so it is much easier for people to go to different medical professionals to try to access whatever it is that they seek.
Clare Haughey has raised a valid point, which I absolutely recognise. It is important to set the context of the discussion, given the differences in healthcare provision.
Nobody in the Parliament wants people with eating disorders or similarly vulnerable people to be given drugs on the NHS to take their lives in Scotland, so I am certain that amendments that seek to promote strong data collection to improve the accountability of doctors will be welcomed. This afternoon, the point has been made several times that a huge responsibility rests on the shoulders of two medical practitioners. In my view, detailed and comprehensive recording is extremely desirable and important, not only to support those professionals to fulfil their role but for reasons of accountability and transparency.
I am very sympathetic to Audrey Nicoll’s points. For a number of years I worked in quite a complex area of healthcare, in which many of our medical professionals are used to making complicated and difficult decisions. I put that on the record to help members to understand that, every day, medical practitioners work with their patients to make complex decisions, but they also allow patients to make decisions themselves, which is the point that we are trying to get to. I am very sympathetic to the proposal to record information, but it is important to understand that such decisions are probably being made every minute in our health service.
I completely agree with Carol Mochan’s comments. It is important that we strike a balance in recognising the role of medical professionals and the role of a patient in that space. That makes it all the more imperative that detailed reporting should take place to support the decision-making process.
The purposes of amendment 173 are to promote transparency, consistency and accountability in the assessment process and to ensure that a clear audit trail is available for regulatory review or professional oversight. Given the instances in which a lack of scrutiny can allow abuse of legislation and significant failures for very vulnerable individuals, I hope that members can see why amendment 173 is necessary and will support it today.
I thank Audrey Nicoll for her excellent contribution. I fully support her excellent and robust amendment 173, which was mentioned alongside my own amendment 37. Does she agree that it is vital that, should the bill pass, we collect all relevant data and detailed case‑study information to give proper meaning to the annual reports on the legislation’s workability and on the review period? That information will be essential if there is to be a credible review of the bill.
The simple answer is yes. Case study review is a critical part of the overall function that we need to undertake with regard to the operation of any legislation, particularly in the context of public protection. I fully endorse and agree with Bob Doris’s points. I ask members to support amendment 173.
I call Alasdair Allan to speak to amendment 176 and other amendments in the group.
I will speak to my amendments 176, 179 and 188.
Normally, members hear me urging the NHS to do more of its work online to avoid unnecessary and gruelling travel for patients in the Highlands and Islands, so I appreciate the points that have been made by Mr McArthur, who makes the same case regularly.
However, I believe that the matter that we are discussing today is in a different category. Whatever members’ views on the bill’s merits might be, I hope that we can agree that a person should not be put in a position where they have to make, via Zoom, a decision about ending their life.
On the point that was alluded to, about allowing for flexibility, I ask members to forgive me if I am ignorant in this regard, but I honestly cannot see circumstances in which a doctor should not make the effort to visit such a patient. I have doubts about whether the bill would allow enough time for proper face-to-face consultations, particularly for the first and second declarations that are set out in it.
I wondered how the bill’s provisions would work in rural areas. Alasdair Allan represents quite a rural and spread-out constituency. Does he think that it would be okay for people in such areas to have in-person visits?
I do not think that there should be fewer protections in rural areas than there would be in urban areas. It seems to me that there should be a pretty basic obligation on doctors to visit patients in such circumstances and that that should apply throughout the country.
At present, the bill seems to assume that consultations could be done remotely—or, at least, it does not rule out that possibility. Identifying coercion over video must be extremely difficult—I would judge it to be impossible—because professionals cannot reliably see the subtle cues, hesitations or dynamics that indicate that someone is under pressure. That is not a theoretical concern. In a remote meeting, it is not even necessarily apparent to all participants who else is in the room or what is being said off camera, as Mr Greer pointed out. To be frank, regardless of whether a patient is in a city or on an island, the professionals involved—
Alasdair Allan makes an excellent point about the subtle cues in detecting coercion. Does he agree that the point about communication goes in the other direction, too, regarding the information that a patient might seek when communicating with the doctor before making a very difficult decision? There is an issue in relation to detecting coercion and another in relation to the patient themselves. Nobody makes a decision by themselves—we are social beings—so it would be vital for the patient as well as for the doctor that there was good-quality interaction.
I fully agree. Anyone who has attempted to ask a question in a hybrid meeting will be able to readily identify with what Daniel Johnson has said.
I would very much like to support Dr Allan’s amendments, but I have a point of clarification on the assessments required under sections 6 and 7. Section 7 would require the co-ordinating medical practitioner not just to conduct assessments with the patient but to make inquiries with other professionals. My reading of section 8 is that, once Dr Allan’s amendments were inserted, its provisions would relate only to the assessment between the medical professional and the patient; the consultation with other professionals would not need to be in person. Will Alasdair Allan clarify whether that is his intention? If it is, I would be keen to support his amendments.
That is my understanding of the way in which the amendments have been written.
In my view, my amendments would at least ensure that the crucial decisions would be made with everyone in the same actual, rather than virtual, room. Therefore, I ask members to back my three amendments in the group.
I call Jeremy Balfour to speak to amendment 184 and other amendments in the group.
I will limit my comments to the amendments in the group that are in my name. Amendment 184 concerns an issue that sits at the very centre of the debate that the Parliament has been having about the bill. It is an issue that we have been hearing about over the past few minutes from different members. Throughout the scrutiny of the bill, Mr McArthur and others have repeatedly given assurances that the legislation will contain robust protections for vulnerable people. Supporters of the bill have pointed to the role of two doctors—the co-ordinating practitioner and the independent practitioner—as one of the key safeguards in the system. If their medical assessments are to play such a critical role, it is essential that the outcomes of those assessments are clear, transparent and properly recorded, particularly when a doctor concludes that the criteria that are set out in the bill have not been met.
Amendment 184 would therefore introduce a straightforward but important requirement. It would mean that, when either the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner or the independent registered medical practitioner carried out the assessment and was not satisfied that the individual met the conditions that are set out in the bill—whether that was because the person was not terminally ill, because the person was not eligible under the legislation or because there were concerns that the declaration might not have been made voluntarily—the practitioner would have to make a formal statement explaining that conclusion. The statement would need to set out the reasons why the practitioner was not satisfied, be signed and dated, and be shared with the individual concerned. In other words, the amendment would mean that, where a doctor determined that the legal tests in the bill had not been met, the decision was clearly documented and properly communicated.
Amendment 184 goes further than that, because it also addresses an important practical concern. Without the safeguard that the amendment proposes, there is a risk that the individual who has been assessed and found not to meet the criteria could simply seek another practitioner and begin the process again immediately.
I accept that, as Clare Haughey said in her intervention a few moments ago, under the bill as it stands, most of that process will be done within NHS Scotland. However, my understanding is—I am happy to be corrected on this—that there is provision within the bill for those in private business to set up such a service. That means that we could end up with a situation in which a person goes to see their GP, the GP carries out the assessment and says, “No, you don’t meet the criteria,” and the person simply goes to a private company, whether it is in another part of Scotland or in the same part that they live in, which could start the process and might come to a different conclusion. That raises the possibility of what we have heard described as doctor shopping, when someone continues to seek further assessments until they eventually find a practitioner who is willing to reach a different conclusion. I worry that people with certain conditions might do that.
I am sure that we all have a preferred doctor. I have a favourite GP at my practice. When I have previously had to go for surgery, I have perhaps hoped to see one consultant over another. That is human nature. However, in the context of the bill, we must prevent situations where an individual who has been refused an assisted death by one doctor simply goes on until they find someone else. Given the point of the bill and its seriousness, I do not believe that such a situation could provide the robust safeguards that the Parliament has been told the bill will contain.
Amendment 184 would therefore introduce a clear provision whereby, when a practitioner records that they are not satisfied that the legal criteria have been met, no further assessment under the bill may take place for a period of 12 months.
I want to come in on that point. I appreciate that Mr Balfour lodged his amendment before we agreed to insert a six-month prognosis provision. However, I wonder how he can reconcile a 12-month period for reassessment with the fact that we have now accepted that the bill should include a six-month provision in terms of when it is likely that a person will die.
17:15
What we agreed last night was a time period within the realms of six months. My older brother, who has just retired as a GP, is getting tired of me telling this story, but, a few years ago, a person walked into his surgery with a very serious condition and asked, “How long do you think I have to live?” It was late summer, and my brother said, “Well, you won’t see Christmas.” I am pleased to say that that person is still alive and playing golf today. There will be situations in which people survive longer than the six-month period that Parliament agreed to include in the bill, and that is why I think that we still need the 12-month rule.
I understand the intention behind the member’s proposal—indeed, in some ways, it is similar to the amendments that I have lodged. However, I worry that the 12-month stipulation is overly burdensome, particularly because, although he is correct to say that the six-month rule is not definitive—I would describe it as more of a yardstick—we are nonetheless dealing with people who probably have only months to live.
The member is right that we do not want doctor shopping, but we must acknowledge that doctors’ opinions are fallible and that, therefore, it is not unreasonable for someone to ask for a second opinion. Does he note that my amendments would require that, if a subsequent decision were made that was contrary to a previous decision, it would need to be explained? Might that compromise be acceptable to the member?
I fully accept that doctors get it wrong on occasion. However, what concerns me is that, without the 12-month rule, we could still end up with individuals shopping around until they find somebody who agrees with them.
I am slightly horrified by the scenarios that the member is maybe inadvertently bringing into play. Imagine that someone is dying and is suffering badly, even with excellent care, and they might be at risk of losing their capacity at some unknown time because they are so very ill. They might not want to take months to die slowly, gasping, at an unknown time; they might want to do it peacefully and at a time of their choosing. However, maybe they do not vibe with the first doctor they talk to—perhaps they got off on the wrong foot with them—but they are still desperate. They are still perhaps months or weeks away from dying, yet they are now being told that the choice is taken away from them because they did not get off on the right foot with that doctor. Of course they should be allowed to go and talk to a different doctor and see if they can have a refresh of that conversation. The second or third doctor they talk to will have the same level of qualifications, and they may understand the person’s situation better.
I think that Lorna Slater is advocating that the person should find various doctors until they get the decision that they want—that it does not matter whether they have a terminal condition, have the appropriate capacity or any of that, and that they should just keep going until they find the doctor who will give them what they want. As Lorna Slater said, there could be doctor 2, doctor 3, doctor 4 and doctor 5. That is simply misusing the system, and it is not what I—
That is not what I said at all.
Let us see what the record says at the end of the day.
I do not want to delay us longer, but I will make a couple more points. I agree with Mr Johnson that his amendments would at least take us further down the right road than what is in the bill at the moment, and, if members are not willing to support my amendments, I hope that they will support his.
After Mr Balfour’s exchange with Ms Slater, I want to put on the record—I am sure that members will agree—that, irrespective of our views on the bill, we respect the professionalism of doctors, irrespective of whether they got off on the wrong foot with someone. Doctors are professionals and they will simply do their job.
As always, Mr Doris is absolutely right—[Laughter.] Well, not always, but in this case he is. I am glad that, as he would say, we have put that on the record.
Amendment 196 would complement my proposal by introducing additional clarity through notification requirements and an oversight mechanism. It requires the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner to notify all assessors, witnesses, proxies and legally authorised representatives within 24 hours of a statement being made. That would ensure that the professionals involved were informed promptly, reducing the risk of miscommunication or oversight.
Importantly, amendment 196 would provide a formal pathway for assessors to record in the individual’s medical records any concerns about eligibility. It would mean that, when disagreements arose, no further action could proceed until the matter was reviewed by an independent panel comprising a medical practitioner with expertise in end-of-life care, a legally qualified professional and an ethicist who specialises in end-of-life decision making. The panel would provide a written determination within 14 days.
Taken together, amendments 184, 196 and 307 would safeguard vulnerable adults, reinforce professional accountability and provide a structured and transparent framework for resolving disagreements. They would ensure that refusals were respected, that professional concerns were independently reviewed and that the process was rigorous and consistent. I ask members to support them.
First, I thank my colleague Stephen Kerr, who spoke to my amendments in group 2 yesterday.
My amendments 91 and 92 seek to reinforce the safeguards that exist earlier in the bill. They are not there to serve as any form of obstacle. I note that the Parliament has agreed to redefine terminal illness—or to refine the definition—to include only those who are expected to die within six months. That amendment has consequences that should be reflected elsewhere in the bill.
It is imperative that, at the second declaration, the doctor once again considers that prognosis. We have heard from colleagues just how arbitrary the six-month timescale can be, and we all have friends and family members who have outlived the timeframe that doctors have given them. Indeed, Esther Rantzen, who has campaigned vigorously for the similar bill to pass in England, has had a much longer life due to new treatments becoming available.
Scott Murray, emeritus professor of palliative care at the University of Edinburgh, in correspondence with members of the Scottish Parliament, pointed out that accuracy rates in prognosis were as low as 23 per cent. Writing in The Times, he said:
“While those facing death cannot access the high-quality palliative care they need, such legislation risks becoming a simple and dangerous cost-saving measure.”
Those are chilling words from those who are working on the front lines of our health service.
Given that, as we heard earlier, prognosis is so flawed and inaccurate, it is vital that a further assessment is made at the second declaration. If it is found that the individual is doing better, that treatment is working or that palliative care is giving a better quality of life, the process should be halted and referred to a panel. If the prognosis has changed, there must be a mechanism to deal with it. As we have just heard, we must ensure that people are not able to doctor shop and that they can be given a decision quickly and clearly.
Colleagues, you can see how complicated all this is. The member in charge is keen for you to believe that it is the simplest thing in the world, that other countries have done it easily and that there is nothing controversial in the bill. That is simply not the case. Every time we scratch the surface of this bill, we open up another load of questions and issues. What happens if the prognosis at the second declaration is different from that at the first? What are the options for the doctor and the patient? There is no panel to adjudicate on decisions, such as the one under the Westminster bill.
This is a flawed bill. We can tighten one bit, but that just exposes issues elsewhere.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will not, thank you, Ms Slater.
A six-month prognosis provision has been introduced, but there is no mechanism for solving the issue if that prognosis changes at the second declaration. Even that small, simple amendment throws up a huge number of issues about coercion, benefit, the involvement of professionals and what happens if another doctor’s opinion is different from that of the first. None of those situations are rare and none are unusual.
I lodged amendments 91 and 92 to try to tighten up just one small flaw. By doing that, we open up other issues. The second declaration should, and must, be an assessment to see whether anything has changed since the first declaration and it should, and must, be recorded properly.
Amendment 197 would address a practical but, nonetheless, important gap in the bill—namely, what happens when a cancellation is not recorded. The bill requires that a cancellation of a first or second declaration be recorded within seven days but, as drafted, it is silent on the consequences if that does not happen. In legislation of such complexity and sensitivity, that silence could be taken as uncertainty. If the bill is to proceed, the law must be absolutely clear on the responsibilities and on what happens when those responsibilities are not met.
Amendment 197 therefore seeks to introduce a clear accountability mechanism. If a cancellation is not recorded within the required seven-day period, the responsible medical practitioner must face professional accountability. I heard what Mr McArthur said about amendment 197, but I know from my work in this Parliament that, sadly, there are times when medical practitioners are not always entirely professional in their oversight activities. Amendment 197 would require the medical practitioner to issue a written apology to the adult for any distress that had been caused and to confirm in writing that the cancellation had been properly recorded.
That requirement matters, because the recording of a cancellation is not merely an administrative step. A cancellation represents a fundamental change of an individual’s decision. If such a change was not properly recorded, there would be a risk of the system proceeding on the basis of information that was simply wrong. Colleagues should consider the uncertainty that could arise if a cancellation was made but not formally recorded. That could give rise to problems in relation to who would be responsible, what safeguards would be triggered and how we would ensure that the individual’s changed wishes were respected.
As it stands, the bill does not address those matters with sufficient clarity. Amendment 197 seeks to provide the necessary clarity. It would reinforce the expectation that decision making in this process must be recorded accurately and promptly, and it would ensure that there were consequences if that did not happen.
I recognise that some of the amendments in the group seek to remove the possibility of improper motives influencing the process while others seek to include additional steps on assessment. It is crucial that all of that is reported and recorded, and I understand what motivated the amendments that seek to provide for that.
However, it is important to note that, although many of the amendments in the group seek to ensure that people would be asked about support and that conversations would be had and recorded, which is crucial, none of them guarantees that such support would be provided. I want to make a few points about that.
The amendments that would provide for information to be recorded but would not deliver the additional support that is needed would not address the unmet needs or health inequalities that exist throughout life and at the end of life.
The amendments that would require referrals to be made to others—especially those that relate to young people—are helpful. Given how hard it is to grow up with a disability, many disabled people have said that they would have considered using the option of assisted dying, had it been available. Therefore, those amendments are really important. However, we all know that referrals are not always actioned, waiting lists are long and referrals do not always result in the delivery of support. We must remember that in the context of what we are being asked to do.
My biggest concern is that none of the amendments in the group would address the fact that some people might have needed support, social care or otherwise throughout their lives, but it has not been there. The absence of that support and the relentless fight for it that many people can face could lead them to feel that not going on was an attractive option.
At stage 2, I lodged amendments that would have meant that support such as social care had to be available, accessible and affordable, and that packages ought to be in place to support disabled people to lead an independent life before the bill was implemented, in order to address that concern, but I was told that they were out of scope. I understand that, but I guess that that is the point. We cannot address the risks that the bill presents by providing for assessment in the bill, because of the existence of other factors that motivate the choice to end a life.
For that reason, although many of the amendments in the group seek to improve the process—I recognise that, and the motivation behind them—if we are to genuinely protect people, we must ensure not only that support is discussed or signposted, but that people are able to access the support that they need in order to live before we consider making it easier for them to choose to die. I do not think that we can ensure that that will be the case through the amendments in this group, or, indeed, through any of the amendments that we will debate over the coming days.
There are many amendments in the group with which I agree and some with which I disagree, but, mercifully, I will speak to only one of them: amendment 154, in the name of Douglas Ross, which I support. My support for the amendment has nothing to do with his proxy declaration for independence yesterday.
17:30
I think that the issue that amendment 154 addresses is very important. As a firm supporter of the bill, I want to put on the record that, for me, when it comes to end-of-life assistance and palliative care, it is not an either/or. Both should be available. It is about what is appropriate for the individual, so I very much welcome nailing this down.
Douglas Ross’s amendment says that, when assessing a declaration, the doctor “must”—it would be mandatory, which is great—discuss available “palliative care options”. That is excellent, because we know that palliative care comes in many forms. It is not necessarily given in the hospice or the hospital; it could also be given at home by Macmillan nurses. There are many ways and different times that it can be delivered to the individual. We must ensure that the person understands all that and that the discussion that the doctor has with the patient is formally recorded. I absolutely support that.
I hope that, if the bill is agreed to, there is a huge improvement in palliative care, so that it is not a case of somebody thinking, “Palliative care is not available or suitable for me; therefore, this is what I must do.” I want both choices—for myself and for everybody else.
So, for probably the first and last time, Mr Ross, I support you.
I will keep this brief. This is the first time that I have spoken in these proceedings, although I have been following them intently. I suspect that, like me, all members are trying to do the right thing. Particularly due to having free votes, it has been an exercise and a half to get my head around the amendments, but I have listened intently to them all.
I lost some sleep last night over a couple of today’s amendments, such as Daniel Johnson’s and Alasdair Allan’s amendments on in-person interactions. From conversations that I have had in the past 24 hours, I know that other members have been wrestling with that issue, too.
At the moment, unfortunately, I feel that some members are in an invidious position in relation to the apparent status quo of the bill as drafted, which means that, in theory, all interactions with both medical practitioners could be virtual, although that is a very unlikely scenario. On paper, it could be that the only physical or face-to-face interaction that some patients would have is at the point of the administration of the substance. I am not comfortable with that, and I do not think that any patient would want to be in that situation.
However, the options that are being presented seem to be at the other end of the spectrum, forcing us into a position in which all interactions must be in person. As Mr McArthur pointed out, that would remove any flexibility to allow for a scenario in which it might be suitable for one or more of the interactions to be virtual or by some other method. This has put many of us in a difficult position. I am keen to support Mr Johnson’s and Mr Allan’s amendments, which would amend the bill to say that there must be some physical interaction between patient and doctor.
Having lived through the Covid years, we have accepted new ways of doing things in healthcare. However, that is for normal circumstances; when it comes to the issue of life and death and the signing off of the schedule 2 statements that doctors would have to make, my gut feeling is that a doctor could and should do that only once he has sat with a patient in person and looked them in the eyes. However, there should also be flexibility.
I know that the Government has taken a neutral position on the majority of the amendments, which is helpful, in some cases. However, to get ourselves out of the conundrum that some of us will find ourselves in when it comes to voting on these amendments, will the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care say in his summing up whether the issue could be resolved in the guidance that would be issued to practitioners? I am looking for some comfort and reassurance on that, because it feels that that might be a way out of the conundrum. If the cabinet secretary cannot robustly, honestly and directly give that reassurance—that is not a criticism in advance—I would be minded to support the amendments that would add the physicality element to the bill.
I will leave it at that. I wanted to raise those issues, because I have wrestled with them, and other members might have done the same. As I said at the beginning of my comments, we want to get the legislation right, no matter what side of the bill we land on. We are approaching the amendments one by one to get them right for the patients who might benefit from the bill, if it is agreed to.
Once again, before I set out the Government’s position on amendments in the group, I note that do not have any comment to make on colleagues’ contributions or the merits of those contributions, nor do I have any comments on the organisations that have in some cases asked for issues to be raised.
I have heard contributions on the amendments in this group from many members with compelling cases to make, but I cannot comment on them—I must only set out the potential implications so that colleagues can take an informed position.
For most of the amendments in this group on which I will comment, I am referring to their deliverability, practicality or potential financial implications, except one, which I will refer to in respect of legislative competence.
Amendment 29 has potential implications for service delivery as it may require medical professionals to accommodate a wider range of timings and settings in relation to provision and oversight, with associated impacts on workforce capacity, scheduling and resource planning. Amendment 31 is a necessary technical amendment that corrects an erroneous cross-reference in section 7(1)(b).
With regard to amendments 91 and 92, the addition of a further layer of assessment would have financial and resource implications for the NHS. On amendment 95, the introduction of new requirements for recording and sharing information relating to assessments could raise deliverability issues around information flows, duplication of records and a need for clarity around who can access or use recorded data. Further consideration would need to be given to alignment with existing legislation, in particular the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007.
Amendments 153, 176, 179 and 188 could lead to some issues around accessibility of assisted dying, particularly for those living in rural and island communities, where there may be fewer registered medical practitioners who are available and willing to be involved in the provision of assisted dying, and potentially greater reliance on digital healthcare.
Amendment 157, which would require the assessing registered medical practitioners to
“make enquiries of at least one health … social care or social work professional”,
would have clear resource implications that would have to be considered.
With regard to amendments 161 and 163, the requirement for referral would be costly and resource intensive, as it would result in both the co-ordinating and independent registered medical practitioners having to make those referrals, regardless of their own medical judgment and whether or not they felt that they required a second opinion. The amendments could require individuals who were seeking assistance to undergo potentially six separate assessments, given that both the initial two assessments would be required, as well as the co-ordinating and independent registered medical practitioners each having to make two referrals.
It is not clear what would happen in a circumstance in which the co-ordinating and independent registered medical practitioners held the relevant experience, nor whether those referrals could be made to the same registered medical practitioner holding the relevant experience.
Amendment 164 may raise equalities issues on the basis of a difference in treatment depending on age. In addition, from a deliverability perspective, consideration must be given to the availability of suitably qualified
“social work and psychiatry professionals”
and the potential impact on assessment timescales and service capacity.
Similarly, amendment 170 may raise equalities issues on the basis of a difference in treatment depending on age. The amendment may also raise issues of legislative competence in providing for regulations that include provision about
“the training, qualifications and experience of the practitioner making the referral.”
From a deliverability perspective, amendment 170 may raise concerns about service capacity, consistency of application and timely access to appropriate support. Several of the indicators listed may be common among the specified age group and could place additional pressure on social work and mental health services, with implications for capacity, prioritisation and waiting times. There are also challenges associated with the interpretation and consistent application of the indicators.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I will do, shortly.
The effectiveness of the amendment would further depend on the availability of clear referral pathways and timely access to appropriate services, otherwise it could potentially impact on access to assisted dying for those aged under 25 years of age. In addition, from a technical perspective, it is not clear if it was intended that that provision would relate to the practitioner making the referral, rather than the practitioner receiving it.
I give way to Mr Hepburn.
I have been trying to communicate telepathically with Jamie Greene to see if he would intervene, but he has not done so, so I will. It is on the point that he raised. I, too, am inclined to believe that the assessments should be face to face, but I was taken with his point about how that could be inflexible in some circumstances. The cabinet secretary has laid out some of the practical issues, but I wonder whether he could comment—I appreciate that it might be difficult, because I completely recognise that the Government is neutral—on the point that Jamie Greene raised about whether such circumstances could be accounted for in guidance.
That would need to be considered in the implementation of the bill, if it is passed. I cannot give any further commentary as to whether that would or should happen, because the Government is neutral on the bill and we would need to consider that at the point of implementation. I am afraid that I cannot provide any further assurance or commentary for Mr Hepburn or Mr Greene on that.
Amendment 171 may present operational challenges, as it raises questions about local authority capacity and alignment with existing social work and safeguarding frameworks. In practice, there is no single consolidated system through which local authorities can readily confirm an individual’s status across the different legal frameworks that the amendment refers to. Responding to such requests may therefore require additional checks across multiple services, potentially increasing administrative burdens and affecting the timeliness of responses. The mandatory referral to a registered social worker where a statement indicates that a person is deemed unable to protect their own interests or where undue influence is identified risks conflating existing statutory safeguarding processes with a broader non-specific referral requirement. That may result in the duplication of existing assessments or referrals being made in circumstances in which appropriate support or protections are already in place.
There are potential challenges around the interpretation and consistency of concepts, such as a person being
“deemed unable to protect their own interests”.
That could lead to variability in the production of local authority statements and in their interpretation by practitioners.
In relation to amendment 173, it is unclear how or where those records are to be maintained. The reference to any regulatory or oversight body exercising statutory functions under the bill or other related legislation is unclear, so the purpose of the proposed record keeping is also not clear. If it is intended that the records should be used by Public Health Scotland for its duties under section 24 of the bill, it is not clear that the information to be recorded and retained would all be necessary. If it is to be used to support investigations into any offences or wrongdoing under the bill, the provision does not seem to support a professional regulator’s access to the information, as they would not be exercising statutory functions under the bill or, arguably, under any related legislation. Without having clarity on the purpose of the record keeping, it would not be possible to say whether 10 years is a suitable retention period.
On amendments 183, 183A, 185 and 195, the requirement for additional accompanying statements, particularly where practitioners must explain divergence from an earlier assessment, may add to the administrative burden. There are also concerns that mandating detailed written justifications could deter clinician participation, lengthen processes and duplicate information that is already required elsewhere in the bill and supporting guidance.
Amendment 184 provides that, should someone be found to be ineligible to request an assisted death, they could not undergo further assessment until a period of 12 months had lapsed. That could result in a person who was otherwise lawfully eligible to be assisted to die being prevented from accessing an assisted death.
On amendments 186 and 196, setting up a panel would be likely to have major financial implications.
I have already spoken about amendment 193 in the debate on group 4, as it relates to amendment 174 in that group. Taken together, the amendments could add procedural complexity and delay without clear evidence that they would improve outcomes beyond the safeguards that are already provided in the bill.
Amendment 197 may give rise to issues of legislative competence in so far as it relates to the G2 regulation of health professions reservation in the Scotland Act 1998. From a delivery perspective, it is also not clear how the provision would be monitored or enforced. The amendment is also very prescriptive in assuming the reaction of the adult involved.
The Scottish Government has no comment on the remaining amendments in the group other than technical points, which can be found in the commentary.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wish to briefly correct the record relating to my contribution in proceedings yesterday on the mandatory training for participation in assisted dying by a physician in Victoria, Australia. Our colleague Emma Harper set out the full mandatory training requirements for participation in assisted dying. My contribution related specifically to training on the identification of coercion. The video that must be watched by candidates is not two minutes, as I stated; it is two minutes and 22 seconds. I hope that that corrects the record.
That will be duly noted on the record.
I call Brian Whittle to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 150.
17:45
This is a large group of amendments, and the Deputy Presiding Officer will be pleased to hear that I will not speak to every single one of them.
As one would imagine, given that we are discussing assessments of and support for terminally ill adults, most of the contributions from across the chamber have been considered and well made. We talked initially about the impact of the option of palliative and social care. However, I say that that should not be an option; rather, it must be offered. I am pleased that everybody is in agreement on that because, in reality, we cannot separate access to palliative and social care from assisted dying.
I was interested in Rona Mackay’s intervention about what has happened in other jurisdictions, on which we also heard evidence in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. There are jurisdictions in which, when assisted dying has been implemented, there has been an improvement in palliative care. However, improvement is not enough. Palliative care has to be consistent and at a certain level before we can consider assisted dying. That is why I was pleased that my colleague Douglas Ross lodged his amendment 154, which once again reminds us that it has to be a real choice for everybody, irrespective of background or personal circumstance.
I listened to the contributions from Bob Doris, Jackie Baillie, Daniel Johnson, Miles Briggs and Fulton MacGregor, who have amended and lodged similar amendments to those that they lodged at stage 2. The stage 2 amendments were eminently sensible, in the direction in which they were going, and they have been amended to fit the bill. I will not go through them all, but I am very pleased that they have been lodged, and they have my support. Paul O Kane’s amendment, which would make it mandatory to seek the appropriate advice, is a crucial amendment, and I ask the chamber to support it.
However, I really want to speak to my amendment 155. Once again, I make the point that, once a request for assisted dying has been made, it is imperative that the professional judgments that come from the two healthcare professionals are made independently. That must be done independently. The amendment would ensure that those judgments were made independently, and I imagine that that would give a certain amount of comfort to the medical professionals themselves, in making such a huge decision.
I have to say—and I do not say this lightly—that the Scottish Government has been particularly unhelpful as the bill goes through stage 3 in declining to give us any steer at all as to what could be legal or otherwise. I was interested in Stephen Kerr and Michael Marra’s discussion of the impact on the Government’s finances. On Michael Marra’s point, I note that there is nothing in the budget that improves investment in palliative care. We are working with a bill at stage 3 without a properly costed and agreed financial memorandum. If the bill passes, it will be incumbent on the Government to ensure that the finances are available to deliver the palliative care that is necessary. If we cannot deliver the palliative care that is necessary, we will be left sitting with a bill that has been passed but which is undeliverable.
I press amendment 150.
Amendment 150 agreed to.
Section 6—Medical practitioners’ assessments
Amendment 22 moved—[Brian Whittle]—and agreed to.
Amendment 23 moved—[Bob Doris]—and agreed to.
I call amendment 151, in the name of Paul O’Kane. I remind members that if amendment 151 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 24, due to pre-emption.
Amendment 151 moved—[Paul O’Kane].
The question is, that amendment 151 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.
The vote is closed.
[Inaudible.]
Could Mr Sarwar put his card in to put his microphone on, please?
I apologise for delaying the chamber even further, Presiding Officer. My app would not load. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Sarwar. Your vote will be recorded.
For
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 59, Against 62, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 151 disagreed to.
Amendment 24 moved—[Bob Doris].
The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 68, Against 50, Abstentions 3.
Amendment 24 agreed to.
I call amendment 152, in the name of Paul O’Kane. I remind members that if amendment 152 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 25, due to pre-emption.
Amendment 152 moved—[Paul O’Kane].
The question is, that amendment 152 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 73, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 152 disagreed to.
Amendment 25 moved—[Bob Doris].
The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 70, Against 49, Abstentions 3.
Amendment 25 agreed to.
Amendment 153 moved—[Daniel Johnson].
The question is, that amendment 153 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 82, Against 40, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 153 agreed to.
Amendment 154 moved—[Douglas Ross].
The question is, that amendment 154 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Abstentions
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 97, Against 22, Abstentions 5.
Amendment 154 agreed to.
Amendment 5 not moved.
I remind members that, if amendment 88 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 6 due to pre-emption.
Amendment 88 moved—[Liam McArthur].
18:00
The question is, that amendment 88 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Abstentions
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 86, Against 28, Abstentions 10.
Amendment 88 agreed to.
As a result of amendment 88 being agreed to, I cannot call amendment 6, in the name of Daniel Johnson, by way of pre-emption.
Amendment 155 moved—[Brian Whittle].
The question is, that amendment 155 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Abstentions
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 15, Against 101, Abstentions 6.
Amendment 155 disagreed to.
Amendment 156 moved—[Paul O’Kane].
The question is, that amendment 156 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Abstentions
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 51, Against 68, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 156 disagreed to.
Amendment 89 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 89 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Abstentions
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 87, Against 27, Abstentions 9.
Amendment 89 agreed to.
Section 7—Assessment under section 6: further provision
Amendment 157 moved—[Paul O’Kane].
The question is, that amendment 157 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 56, Against 63, Abstentions 3.
Amendment 157 disagreed to.
Amendment 26 moved—[Liam McArthur]—and agreed to.
Amendment 27 moved—[Bob Doris].
The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Abstentions
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 85, Against 38, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 27 agreed to.
Amendment 158 moved—[Paul O’Kane].
The question is, that amendment 158 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Abstentions
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 65, Against 56, Abstentions 3.
Amendment 158 agreed to.
Amendment 28 moved—[Bob Doris].
The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 90, Against 29, Abstentions 5.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
Amendment 159 moved—[Brian Whittle].
The question is, that amendment 159 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Abstentions
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 61, Against 56, Abstentions 3.
Amendment 159 agreed to.
Amendment 29 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Abstentions
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 59, Against 60, Abstentions 3.
Amendment 29 disagreed to.
Amendment 30 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Abstentions
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 119, Against 2, Abstentions 3.
Amendment 30 agreed to.
18:15
Amendment 31 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
It would be helpful if members could clearly indicate their preferences. It is not always easy to hear because of the sound levels in the auditorium.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Dey. Your vote will be recorded.
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 123, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 31 agreed to.
Amendment 32 moved—[Bob Doris].
The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 87, Against 33, Abstentions 5.
Amendment 32 agreed to.
Amendment 160 moved—[Bob Doris].
The question is, that amendment 160 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 80, Against 42, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 160 agreed to.
At this stage, I propose that we take a 20‑minute comfort break. Members should return promptly, just before 18:41.
18:20
Meeting suspended.
The rest of this Official Report will be published progressively as soon as the text is available.
Air ais
Skye House