Michael Matheson
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her statement. I very much agree with her comments about securing the economic value of decarbonisation and achieving net zero. The cabinet secretary will recognise that one of the key areas in which we need to see further decarbonisation is the transport sector, including in the bus sector.”
“Gillian Martin: I have the Cabinet Secretary for Transport sitting next to me, who has just told me that that will be announced very soon. As Michael Matheson knows, we are investing a further £45 million to support the adoption of zero-emission buses through the third phase of”
“In our consideration of the bill, we should be particularly mindful of the impact that it could have on some of the most vulnerable members of our society, who lack agency in their decision making.”
“I feel duty bound to point out that the Assisted Dying Bill at Holyrood is not workable in its approach to detecting coercion.” Those are strong words—not from a person who opposes the law in principle, but from someone who is concerned about what we might call the constituency of very vulnerable people in our country.”
“Domestic abuse experts, such as Dr Anni Donaldson, have warned us that the bill “risks offering a new, potentially lethal weapon to abusive men whose partners have been diagnosed with life- threatening or terminal illnesses.” The Scottish Government’s evidence shows that, as we continue to have a hidden population of victims of abuse and…”
“As I rise to make my last contribution to a debate in this Parliament after some 27 years, I cannot think of a more consequential debate taking place during my time here. I offer my congratulations and thanks to Liam McArthur and to colleagues across the chamber for what has been a very dignified and considered debate to this point.”
The complete record
Every one of 165 lines we hold for Michael Matheson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“Gillian Martin: I have the Cabinet Secretary for Transport sitting next to me, who has just told me that that will be announced very soon. As Michael Matheson knows, we are investing a further £45 million to support the adoption of zero-emission buses through the third phase of”
“I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her statement. I very much agree with her comments about securing the economic value of decarbonisation and achieving net zero. The cabinet secretary will recognise that one of the key areas in which we need to see further decarbonisation is the transport sector, including in the bus sector. Alexander Dennis Ltd, a company based in my constituency, is a world leader in low-carbon and zero-emission buses. When do we expect to hear the outcome from round 3 of the Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund, which is seeing the further roll-out of zero-emission and low-carbon buses in Scotland, which are critical not only to Alexander Dennis but to achieving net zero by 2045?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to support local authorities, including Falkirk Council, to deliver vital services, including those aimed at reducing child poverty. (S6O-05661)”
“Given the extent to which domestic abuse remains so prevalent in our society, coupled with the continued low rates of disclosure and the challenges of detecting coercion, it is inevitable that coerced deaths will occur if the Parliament agrees to the bill. Therefore, to those members who remain torn about the bill, I respectfully say this: do not back it if there is any seed of doubt in your mind. Remember that there is no room for uncertainty when it comes to life and death. I urge members to vote against the bill at decision time. 21:30”
“Domestic abuse experts, such as Dr Anni Donaldson, have warned us that the bill “risks offering a new, potentially lethal weapon to abusive men whose partners have been diagnosed with life- threatening or terminal illnesses.” The Scottish Government’s evidence shows that, as we continue to have a hidden population of victims of abuse and coercion in Scotland, it is inevitable that that population will include individuals who are or become terminally ill. Abusive relationships do not end after diagnosis. Although I recognise that those who support the introduction of assisted dying are eager to see legal change, we cannot and should not ignore the serious and real threat posed to vulnerable people through coercion.”
“I feel duty bound to point out that the Assisted Dying Bill at Holyrood is not workable in its approach to detecting coercion.” Those are strong words—not from a person who opposes the law in principle, but from someone who is concerned about what we might call the constituency of very vulnerable people in our country. When supporters of the bill talk about choice and autonomy, they should remember that those are not the reality for some women, disabled people and older people who are trapped in abusive and coercive situations. We should be in no doubt that coercion would take place. No words in this bill would prevent it, because, sadly, not everyone who dies has people around them who truly have their best interests at heart.”
“Isabelle Kerr, who has run rape crisis centres in Scotland for decades, recently stated that the bill “assumes that busy doctors will have the capacity and expertise to spot signs of abuse. My experience tells me that they won’t in most cases.” She went on to say: “MSPs need to realise that coercion will occur under an assisted dying law. In my view, the real questions are who will be coerced to die, and how many such deaths will be missed.” She continued: “This is a complex issue. Strong arguments are put forward by both sides … However, the success of legislation often boils down to its workability.”
“In our consideration of the bill, we should be particularly mindful of the impact that it could have on some of the most vulnerable members of our society, who lack agency in their decision making. Last week, I shared my concerns that the safeguarding measures in the bill would not provide suitably robust defences against the risk of coercion. In 2018, as a Parliament, we listened to the voices of women who had suffered at the hands of abusers through domestic abuse. We listened to their plea to recognise the extent of coercive abuse, and we worked with experts to shape legislation to tackle the issue. Now, more than ever, I believe that we need to listen to those voices again as they warn us of the dangers that the bill would create.”
“As I rise to make my last contribution to a debate in this Parliament after some 27 years, I cannot think of a more consequential debate taking place during my time here. I offer my congratulations and thanks to Liam McArthur and to colleagues across the chamber for what has been a very dignified and considered debate to this point. We all care about people dying and want to see good deaths for those whom we love and for ourselves. However, the bill would not just create a new option for a few. If enacted, it would impose a new reality for every person towards the end of their life—the option of assisted dying. In my view, it would change life and death for everyone.”
“On Christine Grahame’s point, training is one aspect, but I do not believe that the way in which the declaration phase is framed in the bill provides sufficient time and opportunity to deal with the issues thoroughly. It is unreasonable to expect two independent general practitioners who have undergone a period of training to be able to substantiate sufficiently that no coercive and controlling behaviour has influenced the individual they are considering. As I mentioned, we framed the 2018 act in such a way that a pattern of behaviour has to be demonstrated and established, and that takes time and effort.”
“Brian Whittle: I am listening to the debate and, given that those of us on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee had the benefit of taking evidence from witnesses from around the world, I am concerned that some members are being selective in the evidence that they have gathered. There was certainly no suggestion from any of the evidence that we took, as far as I can see, that there is any coercion in this area whatsoever. I am a wee bit concerned that we are looking at things from our own perspective, rather than at all the evidence and facts. Michael Matheson: I am grateful for Mr Whittle’s intervention, given that he has been a member of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee and considered the issues.”
“20:45 Christine Grahame: That was a substantial argument from Mr Matheson, as usual. I agree with everything that he said about coercion, especially in regard to domestic abuse cases. He has a long track record in the Parliament on justice issues. If we went down the road of having training—it would be only in a certain number of cases; it would not be in every case, but that does not make it good—and guidance for the medical profession, would that assist in persuading Mr Matheson that medical practitioners would have sufficient nous and awareness of the subtleties of coercion to allow this to proceed? Michael Matheson: I will take Brian Whittle’s intervention, and I will try to deal with both interventions at once.”
“Inequality is created when individuals cannot access the palliative care that they would like to have, because it is not available to them—if they had the financial means, they might be able to purchase it for themselves. That happens in our society at present. There are also issues of inequality in how aspects of care services are provided. Some of that would play through in relation to the bill and in the decisions that people would make. Financial inequality would result in some people deciding that they want to end their life because they cannot access the services that they believe that they require. Christine Grahame: Will Michael Matheson take an intervention? Brian Whittle: Will Michael Matheson give way? Michael Matheson: I will take Christine Grahame’s intervention, and then Brian Whittle’s.”
“Has the member looked at the evidence from around the world that shows that most people in other jurisdictions who choose assisted dying are affluent, well educated and able bodied, and that practitioners in those jurisdictions are often reluctant to approve people who come from deprived backgrounds, who are disabled or who come from vulnerable backgrounds? That makes me worry that we are setting up a system in which only privileged people will be able to escape suffering at the end of life and that we are restricting people’s ability to make choices, because we think that we know better and can make choices for them. Michael Matheson: There are issues about potential inequalities that are associated with the bill.”
“There will be issues around training and the knowledge of individuals. Some individuals will be dead by the time that the authorities want to do case reviews, so the evidence might no longer be present at that point. There are also issues about the definition of coercion. There are a variety of issues, but I simply do not accept that coercion is not a potential significant risk factor when it comes to assisted dying, and I actually think that it is quite dangerous to try to create the impression that it is not. Lorna Slater: I absolutely hear the concerns of members from across the chamber about safeguarding, particularly for very vulnerable individuals in our society. That is something that we absolutely all share.”
“Rona Mackay: I totally appreciate that coercion exists in domestic abuse and other cases but, in relation to assisted dying, I go back to your point that you do not believe the international evidence. That being the case, do you believe that there have been no prosecutions for coercion in other jurisdictions—not one? The Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Michael Matheson: Given that coercive and controlling behaviour impacts on a range of aspects of our society, including on vulnerable individuals, I do not believe that it will not impact on vulnerable individuals when it comes to making decisions about assisted dying. I cannot speak for the academics who referred to what has happened in other jurisdictions or the evidence that they have from other jurisdictions.”
“It materialises through adult protection cases that social work colleagues deal with on a day-in, day-out basis. In some cases, it involves physical abuse, sometimes it is coercive and controlling behaviour for financial purposes and there can be a range of other factors. The reality is that that type of behaviour will also impact on assisted dying, should the bill be enacted. There is no way that we could suggest that that type of coercive and controlling behaviour will not happen in some way for assisted dying, in the same way as it happens now under adult protection legislation on a day-in, day-out basis for some of the most vulnerable members of our society.”
“That is also why, when we implemented the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, there was an extensive training programme across a range of agencies to develop the specialist skills that were necessary to help to underpin the legislation and the new offence that we had created. With all due respect to Christine Grahame, and with no disrespect to medical colleagues, I say that it is evident that general practitioners, who hold a range of skill sets, would not be experts in identifying coercive and controlling behaviour in the short period involved in dealing with a declaration. That requires specialist skills and needs to be undertaken over a period of time. Further, coercive and controlling behaviour takes place against vulnerable members of our society in our communities on a day-in, day-out basis.”
“Critical to making that offence work effectively is having the right skill set and professional group to undertake the assessment that is needed to identify such a course of behaviour over a period of time. The evidence shows that the key to identifying coercive and controlling behaviour in domestic abuse is often a relationship that is built up over a period of time with specialised police officers and social workers, who work with the individual to identify the coercion that is taking place. I am saying that because there is strong evidence that individuals who are being coerced are often not even aware at the time that they are being coerced and controlled. That is why the point that Paul O’Kane made about the importance of skill sets is critical.”
“I know from the discussion that I had with Dr Anni Donaldson, who is an expert in this field, that anyone who asserts that coercion does not take place must be subject to some level of scrutiny with regard to the quality of the evidence base that has been evaluated in order to make that assertion. I want to give some reasons as to why I am not convinced that that impression is the case. When we were framing the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill and making provision to address coercive and controlling behaviour in legislation for the first time, one of the challenges was to be able to define that type of offence. In the end, we decided to define it as a course of behaviour that occurs over a period of time.”
“I am grateful to the members who have lodged amendments in this group on coercion, which is one of the key risks that are associated with the bill. During the stage 1 debate, when we were debating coercion, it was asserted—as we have heard tonight—that there is no evidence that coercion takes place in other international jurisdictions in which legislation of this nature has been introduced. I respect members who hold that view, but I simply do not believe that to be the case. Coercion is a wider societal issue and it has been for a long time. Given that coercion is one of the most significant risks that are associated with the bill, it is wrong and dangerous to give the impression that, because there is no evidence from other international jurisdictions, coercion does not take place in areas such as assisted suicide.”
“I very much hope that the Scottish Government will consider what has been set out in our report and in the other committees’ reports and work to address those issues at pace as it looks to finalise its plan. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the draft climate change plan, on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Environmental Standards Scotland (Appointment) 17:30”
“In closing my remarks, I want to emphasise the committee’s point that the climate change plan gives us an opportunity to reset Scotland’s net zero ambitions. The draft plan sets ambitions across sectors, but the evidence that was heard by the committee also identified some key areas of risk, including the switch over to electrical vehicles, the decarbonisation of our homes, the decarbonisation of freight transport and the use of negative emissions technologies, as well as the importance of making sure that we deliver on woodland creation and peatland restoration targets. Those areas have significant emission reductions associated with them in terms of tonnage, but we and the committee have highlighted challenges that will need to be overcome if we are to deliver on those ambitions.”
“As well as being mindful of that, we must ensure that the final plan is drafted in such a way that it has enough contingency built into it to address those issues. That links in with my point about the importance of having early warning indicators so that, when things go off track, we can take early action to address those issues. I am not sure how I am doing time-wise, Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer: You have another minute. Michael Matheson: I will briefly touch on a couple of other areas, one of which is transport. Several members have raised the challenges that we face with electrification. Significant progress has been made on that, but there is a significant challenge, especially in the heavy goods vehicle sector, that needs to be addressed.”
“The debate has highlighted the fact that, in dealing with new technology, there is a risk that it might not be able to meet the level of ambition that we are looking for and that, therefore, we must ensure that there is sufficient contingency in the system to deal with that. Sarah Boyack: I think that there is also a risk in not applying new technologies. Sustainable aviation fuel, which our planes will use very soon and into the future, and green hydrogen offer significant opportunities, but there are also risks if we do not provide joined-up support to deliver those new technologies. Michael Matheson: I very much agree. It is not a question of not deploying new technologies; it is a question of recognising that some of them carry different levels of risk.”
“If we look at how the CCP seeks to address energy issues, we can see that it relies to a significant extent on decarbonisation through electrification of our society, whether at domestic or industrial level. Alongside that, it places a greater dependence on negative emission technologies, some of which we know are still in their infancy and still carry significant risk. Therefore, we need to ensure that we build sufficient contingency into how we plan for those things, should they not be able to achieve the level of uplift that the plan expects. In reflecting on this afternoon’s debate, it has at times felt as though we have been debating a committee report on an energy strategy rather than a committee report on a draft climate change plan.”
“The danger is that the burden falls on other policy areas, which then have to make up the difference. We know from previous experience that that is very difficult to achieve and that such an approach is not effective. A system of early warning indicators is helpful not only in supporting the Government to develop policy, to ensure that that policy is on track and to identify where there might be early challenges, but in aiding parliamentarians and committees to scrutinise how the Government deals with some of those issues. I hope that the final iteration of the climate change plan recognises the importance of the transparency and accountability that are provided through a system of early warning indicators that can identify gaps as and when they arise. That brings me on to a further point about specific policy areas.”
“That is why it will be important that there is a proper structure across portfolios within the Government to identify how that delivery can be achieved, and that there is a clear line of responsibility and of action in each individual portfolio. That brings me on to another important recommendation that the committee made, which relates to an issue that many members have mentioned—the need for early warning indicators and the means by which those can be made visible to the public and to Parliament. We should not have early warning indicators just for the sake of it. As we move from a system of annual targets to a system of five-yearly carbon budgets over the course of the next decade and a half, if we start to lose momentum in key areas, we need to be able to identify that at an early stage.”
“The committee highlighted a number of concerns around delivery and the shortage of detail in the draft plan on how key aspects will be delivered. Whether it is aspects of agriculture—Finlay Carson raised the importance of both policy and finance measures to support that sector’s transition—heat in buildings, local government support or our healthcare system, the delivery of policy will be critical in all those areas. I suspect that part of the challenge is that several key parts of delivering in those areas do not rest with the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy or the Cabinet Secretary for Transport: they rest with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and others.”
“One bucket was that of those who thought that the plan may go too far in some areas and that it is too ambitious in what it is trying to achieve. I see by the looks on their faces that some may feel as though there were not many of those—I am afraid, Mr Harvie, that there were. Secondly, there were those who thought that the plan has not gone far enough and, thirdly, there were those who thought that it reaches the right point at this juncture. Wherever you are on this journey—whether you think that the plan goes too far or not far enough, or is about right—it is clear from the debate this afternoon that the main issue is about delivery. A lot of the committee’s recommendations focus on the importance of delivery. Any plan and its ownership are only as good as how the plan will be implemented and delivered.”
“In order to tackle the issues that we need to tackle in our healthcare system—whether that is through green theatres, pharmacology or other measures that can be taken for energy efficiency in our health service—it is important that, in the next session of the Parliament, the health committee is alive to those issues and pursues them with vigour. The same must be true of the local government committee, the rural affairs committee and the committee on constitution and culture. It will be essential that there is collective responsibility in the Parliament to pursue and consider the draft climate change plan. Broadly, there were three buckets to the evidence that the committee received when we were considering the plan.”
“To begin, I apologise for being slightly late for the start of the debate. I will seek to draw the debate together in a consensual fashion, given the importance of the issue. I put on record my thanks to all those members who have contributed to the debate and, in particular, to the committees that have taken time to scrutinise the draft climate change plan. On reflection, it feels as though the wider committee engagement on this particular plan has been greater than we have experienced on previous occasions. That is to be welcomed. Ownership of the draft climate change plan and of the final plan is critical to its success: not only ownership in the Government—I will come to that point—but ownership in the Parliament as well.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the economy secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding whether social impact bonds can be used to improve the employment opportunities for young people, including in Falkirk West. (S6O-05408)”
“Scottish Enterprise has demonstrated that it is not just looking at what project willow has looked at in terms of viable sectors, but that it is willing to take on other projects that might be outwith the parameters of project willow, to secure the outcomes that Michael Matheson has just mentioned.”
“Gillian Martin: I absolutely agree with the sentiment of Michael Matheson’s question. We must look at short-term, medium-term and long- term opportunities for Grangemouth. When I went to the MiAlgae site, it had already started doing the groundwork for the building of its facility, and it is hoping to open that facility in April, so it is hitting the ground running. Scottish Enterprise has also been looking at other short-term, medium-term and long-term projects. I am particularly excited about the opportunities that might exist in sustainable aviation fuel, as that could be a game changer. I am also interested to see what might come about as a result of the two projects that we are announcing today and what other opportunities might come through to Scottish Enterprise.”
“I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her statement and for the announcement of new investment in the Grangemouth area in the coming years. The cabinet secretary will recognise that it is important that we try to retain many of the skills that have been lost through the closure of the petrochemical site in the Falkirk and Grangemouth area. We need to make sure that secure investment is made in the area in the short term as well as the medium to longer term, but there is a risk that too much of Scottish Enterprise’s work is focused on project willow, which is medium to longer term. Will the cabinet secretary ensure that Scottish Enterprise intensifies its work to secure early employment opportunities in the Grangemouth area in order to maximise the opportunity to retain skills in the area?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support manufacturing, including in the renewable energy sector. (S6O-05263)”
“That would provide a great deal of comfort to those who are willing to base themselves in Scotland and give them additional orders that would turbocharge their investments and create economic value locally.”
“The Deputy First Minister and I have been making representations in support of that, in exactly the kind of cross-Government deliberations that the member would expect. It is not just the offshore wind supply chain that will yield a great amount of economic activity for Scotland, although, as I outlined in my statement, that is where the real prize is. The cable manufacturers that we are attracting to Scotland should also be considered when it comes to the transmission cabling that is required. That is happening right now. I wrote to the UK Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero about the fact that the National Energy System Operator has no local procurement conditions around transmission cabling.”
“The cabinet secretary will be aware that more than half of ScotWind projects are floating offshore wind projects. Given the technological challenges in that sector, it is essential that, to support its deployment, we attract the blade and cell manufacturing for floating offshore wind to Scotland. Given Mingyang’s proposals for an integrated offshore wind production facility in Scotland, what engagement has the Scottish Government had with the company to support that investment? Will it engage with the UK Government to ensure that decisions are made in support of that proposal at pace, in order to allow that investment to go ahead? Gillian Martin: We welcome Mingyang’s smart energy proposals for the £1.5 billion investment in a new turbine manufacturing facility at Ardersier port.”
“Kate Forbes: I appreciate Michael Matheson’s questions on that. I am sure that my colleague Fiona Hyslop, in the work that she is progressing on procurement, will listen carefully to the points that Michael Matheson has made on fair and open competition that is focused on operators of public service routes. On the two points that Michael Matheson has identified, he will appreciate that we are looking at all opportunities to continue to support the Scottish economy and key industries in it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Stephen Kerr, who joins us remotely.”
“I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister for their on-going engagement with ADL, which is based in my constituency. It is important that we address the structural issues that have led us to this situation, which relate to the Subsidy Control Act 2022. I therefore ask the Deputy First Minister to engage with the UK Government on two measures. The first is increasing the social value weighting across public sector procurement, and potentially moving it as high as 30 per cent to support domestic production. The second is ensuring that domestic and international bidders are subject to the requirements of the fair work first policy in an equal way to the way in which ADL invests in its workforce. I believe that those measures would help to create a level playing field for ADL and, importantly, for the workforce at ADL.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what support is currently provided to local authorities to improve literacy, numeracy, and outcomes for young people, while tackling the poverty-related attainment gap. (S6O-05152)”
“I have engaged, and will continue to engage, with the UK Government across many different forums. This week, I wrote to the secretary of state to reiterate our asks of the UK Government with regard to the climate change plan, not least on rebalancing energy prices to reduce the cost of electricity, which intervention the Climate Change Committee views as critical to delivering emissions reduction, as it does CCUS. I wrote again yesterday with regard to the UK Government’s carbon budget 6 response, which I thought was lacking in detail.”
“Gillian Martin: Michael Matheson knows the area well, so he will know that the UK will not meet its 2050 target without Scotland meeting its 2045 target, and vice versa. When I mention the UK Government, it is not to have a go, but is to say that we need to work together on those things. We have a Labour Government that has shared objectives on net zero, so we have a moment in time when we are able to work together and achieve our shared aims. The Climate Change Committee’s advice to the UK Government in carbon budget 7 was clear that between 30 and 60 per cent of the emissions reduction that will be required across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be in policy areas that are mostly reserved. That emphasises just how crucial intergovernmental co-operation will be in reaching not only Scotland’s net zero target but also the UK’s.”
“I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her statement. I welcome the commitment to ensuring that we maximise the economic and environmental benefits of transitioning to net zero. Although good progress has been made, the cabinet secretary will recognise that there is a need to ensure that, in order to meet the 2045 target and the UK’s 2050 target, policy actions on areas such as Acorn and carbon capture, use and storage need to be taken by the UK Government to support us in achieving that. Is the cabinet secretary satisfied that the UK Government has shown the necessary ambition and pace in such key areas to ensure that we can meet our 2045 target and that we can maximise the associated environmental and economic opportunities?”
“That is why I believe that expanding our renewables, storage, hydrogen and carbon capture activities will help us to build an affordable, resilient and clean energy system. That is why I do not support the development of nuclear power resources in Scotland: I think that they are expensive and we have alternative sources that are much cheaper. The practical effect of all that is that a Labour Government that pledged to cut bills by £300 has presided over an increase of bills of £190 since the general election. Let us hear that again: the Labour Government promised to reduce bills by £300 but they have gone up by £190. No wonder the people of this country do not trust the Labour Party in Scotland. The Presiding Officer: I will take two further brief questions. Public Office (Accountability)”
“The First Minister will be aware that energy bills across Scotland have risen yet again. That increase has been partly caused by the United Kingdom Labour Government’s costly nuclear tax that we are now paying for Sizewell C—the world’s most expensive nuclear plant. It is estimated that it will cost Scottish households something in the region of £300 million over the next decade alone. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the impact that that will have on Scottish households, and does the First Minister agree that further expansion of nuclear power will bring not only environmental risks but the risk of pushing up energy prices even further? The First Minister: That issue lies at the heart of the choices that are to be made about our energy future.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting path networks established under land reform legislation for outdoor recreation. (S6O-05091)”
“Edward Mountain: I am very happy to take interventions. I failed to take one this evening from Ariane Burgess because I did not notice her request to intervene, for which I apologise now. However, I am happy to take interventions from anyone on this matter if they wish to intervene. I am looking at members now, but they are not prepared to make interventions. I will stick with my amendments, and I will press them. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 307 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed. 18:15”