15:02

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman): The next item of business is stage 3 of the Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Bill. For the first part of the stage 3 proceedings members should have the bill—that is, SP bill 15—the marshalled list, which contains all amendments selected for debate, and the groupings of amendments. I will allow an extended voting period of two minutes for the first division and thereafter I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate on a group. All other divisions will be 30 seconds.

Section 1—Offence of preventing or stopping a child from being fed milk

The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 1 is on the maximum age of the child. Amendment 1, in the name of Carolyn Leckie, is grouped with amendments 2 to 5. If amendment 1 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 2 to 5.

Carolyn Leckie (Central Scotland) (SSP): I congratulate Elaine Smith, who has worked fantastically hard to bring the bill to this stage, and I also congratulate all the helpers, supporters and organisations that have helped in that wonderful achievement. The bill will have a very positive impact on the promotion, incidence and continuance of breastfeeding, with its indisputable health and emotional benefits. My amendments are positive and constructive—as they were at stage 2—and are designed to ensure that no child or breastfeeding mother is discriminated against.

My preference is that there should be no definition of a child's age in the bill. I believe that the mother-baby breastfeeding dynamic is exclusively the terrain of the mother and baby and that no one has a right to cast an opinion on when breastfeeding should cease. It would be wrong to dismiss the health benefits of breastfeeding a toddler or older child. Breast milk adapts to the exact needs of the child as it grows. Indeed, the concentration of antibodies and other anti-infective properties in breast milk increases as the amount of milk the child consumes declines. As a child grows and moves about it encounters hazards in the form of bacteria while it is on the floor in the kitchen or outside playing and breast milk adapts to take care of that development.

From an evolutionary perspective, there is no evidence that children should be weaned by a certain age. There are not only health benefits but emotional benefits and comfort for an articulate child who understands what it means to want a

Col 12074

breastfeed. That is not just about fluid or food. By that age, an emotional relationship has been established and it should be up to the mother to decide when and where breastfeeding is necessary. I breastfed two children, one to two years and two months and one to about 16 months and that was their personal relationship with me. By that stage a child can need a breastfeed not just for food or fluid but for emotional comfort. A child might fall and bang its knee or its head and no one should be able to request its mother to stop breastfeeding that child for comfort in a public place, such as a restaurant or pub.

That is why the World Health Organisation, in its "Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding", which was adopted at the 2002 world health assembly, was careful not to set an upper limit on the duration of breastfeeding. The National Childbirth Trust reports women breastfeeding older children in secret because of society's intolerance—in fact, there is not just intolerance but abject hypocrisy when it comes to the display of breasts and nipples. There are tits all over the newspapers, tits all over newsagents' shelves, tits all over the telly, tits in the cinema, tits on advertising hoardings and, no doubt, tits in the Parliament. Tits for titillation are okay, apparently—

The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Leckie, can I just stop for you for a minute? I was prepared to allow one such reference, but I think that we have got the message. Perhaps you could continue your speech without the use of that particular word. Thank you.

Carolyn Leckie: That was the last one. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.

Prudishness kicks in when it comes to the nutritional and emotional needs of an articulate child, who will still be blissfully unaware of society's double standards. Is the fact that the age has been set at two just pandering to that prejudice? I know that that is not Elaine Smith's intention, but I am worried that that might be the effect. It might pander to prejudice both within the Parliament—I have heard comments in the corridors about my amendments, so I know that there is such prejudice—and without.

If we do not amend the age limit in the bill, mums and children will be discriminated against. There are children in our culture breastfeeding over the age of two. If it is a criminal offence to harass or intimidate a breastfeeding mother of a child under two, surely it should be the same for all. Who decides whether a child is two years, 20 months, or 18 months and quite big? Will a publican who believes that a child is two be free to ask a mother to leave even though the child is 18 months old but looks older? There is potential for

Col 12075

confusion. It is, rightly, against the law to assault someone. We would never countenance a law that meant that it was criminal to hit one person but not another, and we should avoid discrimination here.

My amendments allow members to decide how many breastfeeding toddlers they are prepared to avoid discriminating against. The higher the age, the greater the likelihood that no one will be left out. Prejudice should not be pandered to but needs to be confronted head on. Whose breasts are they anyway?

I move amendment 1.

Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): I oppose the amendments in Carolyn Leckie's name. It should not surprise members that no Health Committee member supported similar amendments at stage 2.

Everybody should be clear about what the bill is and is not. The bill does not create a new right to feed milk to a child in a public place. People already have that right in Scots law—that was made clear in the evidence to the Health Committee. If that is not what the bill is about, what is it about? It is about creating the new and appropriate criminal offence of preventing a child from being fed milk in a public place. If we are creating a new criminal offence, it is essential to have clarity. The amendments would fudge that and create difficulties. Amendment 1, which would remove the age limit altogether, would certainly do that.

The committee was impressed by the member who introduced the bill and the work that had been done to settle on the age of two. I have formed the impression from the amendments that Carolyn Leckie has lodged at stages 2 and 3 that she does not mind what age is chosen; if she does not get one age, she will go for another. That is not the way to approach amendments. All the amendments that she has lodged should be opposed for the simple reason that clarity in the criminal law is needed.

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): I hope that members will accept that I am not a prude, although I would not feel particularly offended if they suggested that I was. I am deeply disappointed that the speech from the member who lodged the amendments was, frankly, no more than a design to appear on tomorrow's front page of the Daily Mirror, The Sun or some other tabloid. The subject is serious and must be tackled appropriately. Carolyn Leckie's failure to show maturity does the argument that she deploys no good.

I am surprised that such amendments have been lodged at stage 3. An inability to present a coherent argument for a single viewpoint at stage 3 shows a singular lack of intellectual rigour and

Col 12076

commitment to a viewpoint.

Carolyn Leckie: Will the member give way?

Stewart Stevenson: The member will be able to sum up.

I wonder whether, in having five amendments, the five Scottish Socialist Party members in the chamber should each have reflected one of the five viewpoints that the party clearly has.

I congratulate Elaine Smith on introducing the bill, which will be a valuable addition when it is passed, as I am sure it will be. I will be happy to support the bill, but the amendments do not show the way to deal with a bill at stage 3.

15:15

Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP): I, too, remind members that we are at stage 3. The Parliament is a law-making place, so the decisions that we take when making laws must stand up in court. Carolyn Leckie has missed the point, as have the Conservatives in opposing the bill in toto. In many times and in many places, politics and legislation must be about compromise. It is striking that in the bill and in her response to the amendments in committee, the member in charge of the bill took a responsible approach based on compromise, to ensure that we take the country with us. We cannot have arguments such as those made by Carolyn Leckie, which divide people and distract them from the main point about what is needed.

I would have preferred us to take a different route: a position based on rights and antidiscrimination, such as was taken by Queensland in Australia. Had we done that, there would have been no need for Carolyn Leckie's amendments. We cannot take such an approach, because the Parliament does not have the powers to pursue it. Members are sighing, but this is a serious point. The issue is the powers of the Parliament. Because we are not taking the rights-based approach in the bill, we are required to make use of the criminal law, as Mike Rumbles pointed out. In matters of criminal law, it is necessary to be exact, because a criminal case could be pursued. That is the intellectual argument that Carolyn Leckie will have to address when she sums up. At stage 3, members must be responsible in the arguments that they make and must address the points at issue.

There is a strong argument for rejecting the amendments and for accepting that, as a compromise position, it is right that the Parliament should take a view on the age of children who are covered by the bill. In committee Kate Maclean made the important point that at the age of two a child is able to understand that it can be fed later. This is a responsible piece of legislation.

Col 12077

Very few women breastfeed beyond six weeks. Even fewer women breastfeed beyond two years. The bill is for the 80 per cent or more of women—working-class women—in West Lothian who do not breastfeed at all after six weeks. Let us take a responsible position, follow Elaine Smith's lead and reject the amendments.

Mr Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland) (SNP): I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendments and for Carolyn Leckie's position. It is slightly strange that we should say to mothers that they can breastfeed their children in public places up to the age of two but can no longer do so and be protected by this legislation after the children reach their second birthday. However, the member did not do her case justice in her opening speech—the argument could have been made better.

The problem with the amendments is that we risk giving the opponents of the bill the opportunity to put in a cheap shot, so that they can undermine the bill and make it a laughing stock. It is extremely important that we do not do that. Although I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments, which set out the position that we should hold in an ideal world, unfortunately that is not the situation.

Evidence from around the world suggests that many women breastfeed children who are over two years of age. However, Fiona Hyslop has made the point that that is not the situation in our society today. I thought that the purpose of the bill was to ensure that we sent out a strong message to the people of Scotland that we think that children should be breastfed, where possible, as that is good for children and mothers, and that we want to raise the number of children who are breastfed for longer periods. The critical point is that the bill is not about two years, but about six, seven and eight weeks.

The bill is too important to be lost because of attacks by some of our friends in the press and even by some of our friends in the chamber, who will use every possible avenue to attack and undermine the bill and its purpose. Although I sympathise with the amendments, they do not address the current situation. It is more important to pass the bill in its current form, to get it on to the statute book and to send out a strong message to women in Scotland that the Parliament is defending them and that we are doing the right thing by both mothers and children in our society.

Eleanor Scott (Highlands and Islands) (Green): I will support the amendments, because I have re-examined the provisions of the bill, which talks about "feeding milk". That includes bottle feeding. I know that most children over the age of two or three are no longer bottle fed and that they can be told to wait if they demand to be breastfed

Col 12078

or bottle fed. However, that is not the case for all children. Some children—especially children with special needs—are bottle fed milk for much longer and should not be missed out. We are not dealing with a large number of children, but they are a group that can be discriminated against. We should support the amendments, which will not undermine the bill. The amended provision will not be widely used or make a difference to many people, but it should be in the bill for the sake of completeness. I will support the amendments.

Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab): I congratulate Elaine Smith on introducing the bill and thank her for all the hours of work that she has put in over the past few years.

In opposing amendments 1 to 5 I will repeat some points that were made by colleagues. I have no sympathy for the amendments.

Carolyn Leckie: Fiona Hyslop talked about compromise, which is why the amendments were lodged in their current form. As I stated in my speech, my preference is for there to be no age definition at all, but amendments 1 to 5 allow members to avoid discriminating. Does Cathie Craigie believe that it should not be a criminal offence for a publican or a restaurant owner to ask a mother who is breastfeeding a child over two to stop or leave? Is she saying that she supports that?

Cathie Craigie: No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that I do not support amendments 1 to 5. The Health Committee made the point that the age of the child is important, because at a certain age it could wait until it got home or went somewhere else.

I understand the situation well. I fed both my children for the first year of their lives, and I would do anything to encourage women to breastfeed their children. People who use bottles do not realise the benefits that they are missing out on, such as the closeness that a mother can experience when she breastfeeds her child, to which Carolyn Leckie referred. We have to get across to the 80 per cent of women who do not breastfeed their children that they do not have to be superwomen.

Breastfeeding is natural, but I am afraid that there are people out there who do not think that it is natural to feed a child aged six. To some people, supporting amendments 1 to 5 would be saying that we will be encouraging them to do that.

The bill takes us a great step forward, and shows that we will not allow women who are breastfeeding to be discriminated against. As other people have said, the amendments are more about publicity seeking than furthering the cause of encouraging women to breastfeed.

Col 12079

The Minister for Health and Community Care (Mr Andy Kerr): As noted at stage 2 by the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, Rhona Brankin, the Executive is committed to giving every child the best possible start in life. Elaine Smith's bill will contribute to that. We also feel that the bill's age limit of two years is appropriate.

In Scotland, our rates of breastfeeding initiation and duration are low and even at the six-week review fewer than 40 per cent of mothers are breastfeeding their babies. The Executive is committed to supporting breastfeeding and driving those rates up, but we must remain realistic. The World Health Organisation refers to feeding for two years and beyond and there will be mothers who continue to breastfeed for longer than two years—and we support them in doing so—but we believe that we must concentrate our support and promotional efforts on the very earliest period of a child's life. In particular, we believe the first six months to be the most important period and we encourage all women who can and choose to breastfeed to do so exclusively for the first six months. It is that early period that we will focus on when developing our national breastfeeding strategy in conjunction with the Scottish breastfeeding group over the coming year.

In choosing the two-year limit, the bill will offer protection to the majority of women who choose to breastfeed in Scotland. We must remember that keeping the age limit at two years in no way makes the act of breastfeeding in public illegal. There is the risk that removing or changing that limit could open up the bill to ill-deserved and ill-informed criticism. Elaine Smith has put in a great deal of work to get the bill to this stage. It would be a great shame if anything happened to jeopardise the bill—our bill—at this stage, and therefore the Executive will resist amendments 1 to 5.

Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab): Similar and identical amendments to those that are being moved by Carolyn Leckie today were rejected unanimously by the Health Committee at stage 2, but I am happy to debate the issues once again, because the more the subject is debated, the better for raising awareness and challenging some of the prejudices and misconceptions about breastfeeding.

I will provide a bit of background. It seems from research that the norm for weaning from the breast around the world is between two and four years, although in some cultures it happens when children are older. For example, custody law in India decrees that any child under six years old must reside with the mother because such children are considered to be of suckling age. Research that compares humans with other primates suggests that humans' natural weaning

Col 12080

age is a minimum of two and a half years and a maximum of six to seven years. It should be entirely up to mothers and babies when they want to stop breastfeeding and there should be no stigma attached to that, because it is their choice.

However, we do not live in a breastfeeding culture in Scotland and there are, of course, cultural issues to address, to which Carolyn Leckie referred. The reality is that even a small baby who is utterly dependent on its mother's milk can be looked at askance when feeding in public and can be segregated or ejected from public places and licensed premises. The bill is intended to offer them protection in law and to promote breastfeeding, thereby—I hope—assisting in changing attitudes and impacting positively over time on how society views all breastfeeding.

I turn to the amendments. When proposed legislation seeks to change existing law it must be clear, unambiguous and precise, as other members have said. To leave the term "child" undefined would not make good law. Without a definition, "child" might include anyone from one day old to 18 years old. Given that the bill will create a criminal offence, "child" must be defined so that everybody knows exactly what the offence entails. Carolyn Leckie's amendment 1 must be rejected based the basic tenets of good Scots law.

Carolyn Leckie's other amendments relate to a more substantive issue, which the steering group that I set up with professionals discussed in several meetings. The group finally agreed to the age of 2 as a cut-off point. Given the research on weaning that I mentioned, we could argue that seven years would have been a more legitimate cut-off point; I note that Carolyn Leckie did not include the age of 7 in her suggestions. The age limit of two years was inserted in the bill because the World Health Organisation recommends that children be breastfed up to two years and beyond. It does not set an upper limit, but it does mention two years. It does not recommend that children be breastfed up to a year and beyond, three years and beyond or four years and beyond; it mentions two years and beyond. The age is not entirely arbitrary and there is logic to it.

The commonsense point was made to the Health Committee that children under two years cannot understand the concept of waiting for a feed, whereas older children can, and can generally communicate their feelings, wants and needs.

Carolyn Leckie: It is important that we address the point about children waiting for a feed because they can understand the concept. Why should they wait? For whose benefit should they wait, especially if they have an emotional need for a breastfeed? Should they wait because of other people's prejudices?

Col 12081

Elaine Smith: They will still be able to feed. There is a misconception about the bill, which will protect children up to two years old who are being breastfed in public; it will not make it illegal to feed them if they are aged over two years. Over time, we will begin to change the culture, to which Carolyn Leckie rightly referred.

The bill is about safeguarding and protecting the right of young children to feed. It will create a criminal offence that will ensure that babies have the unfettered right to feed in certain public places. After much deliberation, the steering group fixed the age at two years to define the meaning of "child" for the purposes of the bill. That decision is measured and proportionate. In considering the evidence at stage 1, the Health Committee concluded that to define "child" for the purposes of the bill was appropriate. In the vote at stage 2, it unanimously rejected leaving out the age or changing it to a higher age.

As I said in response to Carolyn Leckie's intervention, if the bill is passed benefits will accrue in changing attitudes, in making breastfeeding more culturally acceptable and in encouraging breastfeeding of children beyond the age two. I reiterate that the status quo will prevail. It will not be illegal to breastfeed one's child after the child is two years old; that is the misunderstanding.

Although some children are breastfed for longer than two years, the majority are weaned far too early, as is evidenced by the Executive's target of having by next year 50 per cent of children still breastfeeding at six weeks. That target is far from being realised—we are at below 40 per cent at present. Attitudes have to change and I think that they will evolve to embrace all breastfeeding as normal and nurturing maternal behaviour.

We have to consider the realpolitik. It is a bit of a quantum leap in the United Kingdom to introduce legislation on the matter. The provision of legal protection for breastfeeding of children up to two years old is reasonable, sensible and realistic for the reasons that I have outlined. However, if members take a different view and wish to insert an age other than two, that is their prerogative. The bill is in their hands at the moment and I would be relaxed about such a change.

I do not know where members will set the age limit; I do not know which of the options they will pick or what logic they will use. However, I am clear that the term "child" must be defined. Although I think that women and children should make their own choices about weaning from the breast, I must stand by the definition that is set out in the bill, as was agreed at stage 2.

Col 12082

15:30

Carolyn Leckie: I was told that I would not get to wind up, so this is a surprise and I do not have anything written.

I have to challenge—[Interruption.] Members are getting all excited. I have to challenge the grossly unfair allegations about my speech, which demonstrate the abject hypocrisy that I described.

Members: They do not.

Carolyn Leckie: They absolutely do. Some—although not all—speeches proved the points that I made about prejudice and pandering to prejudice. [Interruption.] I support the bill. I am not going to oppose it. I started off by congratulating Elaine Smith, and I will end by congratulating Elaine Smith. We will support the bill, whether or not it is amended.

Elaine Smith made a substantive point about the logic of determining the age limit. Elaine knows that, at stage 2, I moved amendments for there to be no limit or for the age limit to be five years, which would take the limit to a logical age—the start of a child's school years. The purpose of that was to bring as many children as possible under the definition of "child" in order to avoid discrimination. That is why I lodged amendments; Parliament can choose how many children from whom we want to remove any risk of their being discriminated against.

If members set the limit at the age of three, that will cover almost everybody. If they set the age limit at four, that will cover nearly 100 per cent. To go beyond that would concern very few more. I think that taking the limit to three years would be more logical in respect of the WHO's recommendations about "two years and beyond". The point is worth repeating: in its latest strategy document, the World Health Organisation deliberately avoided providing a definition. In that definition, "beyond" means beyond two. Surely, it would be most logical to insert an age limit of three; Parliament can make that choice.

I was challenged to propose a compromise, which is why my amendments are as they are. They allow the opportunity for compromise and what could be more democratic, inclusive and dynamic than that? At stage 2, Elaine Smith asked why the limit could not be seven, six, five or four. It was legitimate to ask that, but I have still not had a satisfactory answer to the question why the limit should be two. Children are breastfed beyond that age—[Interruption.]

Could you stop the interruptions, Presiding Officer? This really is not fair.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: You have a point, Ms Leckie.

Col 12083

I was about to say that, when a member is on their feet making a speech or a statement, it really is rude of you all to be talking, and you are doing a lot of that. Members should listen to what Ms Leckie is saying.

Carolyn Leckie: I do not mind having a conversation about the matter outside the chamber, but I did not think that we were supposed to have such conversations in here.

There are children in the public gallery today. No doubt, there are toddlers beyond the age of two in the gallery, very attentively watching the debate and listening to what is said. They will be disappointed with some of the remarks that have been made and with some of the prejudice that has been conveyed by some people. Instead of acknowledging that a stigma exists and setting the age limit at two because of that stigma, we should be challenging that stigma. I challenge Parliament to consider compromising on the matter, as Fiona Hyslop asked us to do, and at least to adopt "two years and beyond". To my mind, "two years and beyond" is three. Please support that proposal.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.

FOR

Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP) 

Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind) 

Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP) 

Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP) 

Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP) 

Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP) 

Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)

AGAINST

Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) 

Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) 

Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) 

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) 

Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green) 

Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) 

Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green) 

Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green) 

Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab) 

Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) 

Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 

Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) 

Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) 

Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) 

Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) 

Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) 

Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) 

Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con) 

Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab) 

Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) 

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP) 

Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) 

Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con) 

Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) 

Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) 

Col 12084

Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) 

Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD) 

Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) 

Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) 

Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) 

Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab) 

Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) 

Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) 

Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) 

Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab) 

Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) 

Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) 

Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) 

Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) 

Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP) 

Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD) 

MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP) 

Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab) 

Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab) 

Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) 

Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) 

Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) 

Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) 

Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP) 

Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) 

May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab) 

McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) 

McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab) 

McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP) 

McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) 

McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) 

McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) 

Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) 

Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con) 

Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP) 

Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab) 

Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) 

Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD) 

Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) 

Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) 

Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) 

Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) 

Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD) 

Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) 

Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) 

Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) 

Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green) 

Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) 

Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) 

Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) 

Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD) 

Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) 

Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP) 

Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP) 

Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con) 

Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind) 

Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD) 

Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP) 

White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) 

Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) 

Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)

The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 7, Against 86, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

Amendment 2 moved—[Carolyn Leckie].

The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Col 12085

Members: No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.

FOR

Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green) 

Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green) 

Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green) 

Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP) 

Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind) 

Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP) 

Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP) 

Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) 

Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) 

Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP) 

Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP) 

Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) 

Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green) 

Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)

AGAINST

Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) 

Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) 

Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) 

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) 

Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) 

Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab) 

Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) 

Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 

Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) 

Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) 

Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) 

Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) 

Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) 

Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) 

Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con) 

Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab) 

Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) 

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP) 

Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) 

Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con) 

Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) 

Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) 

Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) 

Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD) 

Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) 

Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab) 

Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) 

Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) 

Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) 

Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab) 

Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) 

Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) 

Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) 

Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP) 

Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD) 

MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP) 

Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab) 

Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab) 

Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) 

Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) 

Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) 

Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) 

Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP) 

Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) 

May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab) 

McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) 

McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab) 

McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP) 

McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) 

Col 12086

McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) 

McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) 

McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) 

Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) 

Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con) 

Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP) 

Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab) 

Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) 

Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD) 

Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) 

Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) 

Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) 

Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) 

Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD) 

Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) 

Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) 

Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) 

Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) 

Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) 

Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD) 

Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) 

Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP) 

Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP) 

Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con) 

Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind) 

Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD) 

Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP) 

White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) 

Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) 

Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)

The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 14, Against 79, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 disagreed to.

Amendment 3 moved—[Carolyn Leckie].

The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.

FOR

Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green) 

Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green) 

Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green) 

Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP) 

Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind) 

Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP) 

Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP) 

Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) 

Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP) 

Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP) 

Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) 

Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green) 

Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)

AGAINST

Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) 

Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) 

Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) 

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) 

Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) 

Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab) 

Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) 

Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 

Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) 

Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) 

Col 12087

Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) 

Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) 

Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) 

Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) 

Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con) 

Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab) 

Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) 

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP) 

Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) 

Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con) 

Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) 

Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) 

Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) 

Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD) 

Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) 

Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab) 

Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) 

Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) 

Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) 

Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab) 

Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) 

Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) 

Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) 

Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) 

Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP) 

Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD) 

MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP) 

Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab) 

Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab) 

Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) 

Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) 

Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) 

Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) 

Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP) 

Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) 

May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab) 

McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) 

McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab) 

McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP) 

McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) 

McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) 

McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) 

McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) 

Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) 

Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con) 

Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP) 

Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab) 

Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) 

Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD) 

Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) 

Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) 

Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) 

Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) 

Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD) 

Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) 

Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) 

Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) 

Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) 

Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) 

Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD) 

Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) 

Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP) 

Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP) 

Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con) 

Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind) 

Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD) 

Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP) 

White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) 

Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) 

Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)

Col 12088

The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 13, Against 80, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 3 disagreed to.

Amendment 4 moved—[Carolyn Leckie].

The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.

FOR

Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green) 

Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green) 

Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green) 

Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP) 

Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind) 

Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP) 

Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP) 

Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) 

Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP) 

Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP) 

Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) 

Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green) 

Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)

AGAINST

Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) 

Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) 

Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) 

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) 

Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) 

Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab) 

Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) 

Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 

Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) 

Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) 

Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) 

Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) 

Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) 

Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) 

Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con) 

Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab) 

Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) 

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP) 

Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) 

Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con) 

Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) 

Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) 

Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) 

Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD) 

Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) 

Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab) 

Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) 

Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) 

Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) 

Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab) 

Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) 

Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) 

Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) 

Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) 

Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP) 

Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD) 

MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP) 

Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab) 

Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab) 

Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) 

Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) 

Col 12089

Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) 

Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) 

Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP) 

Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) 

May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab) 

McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) 

McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab) 

McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP) 

McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) 

McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) 

McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) 

McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) 

Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) 

Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con) 

Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP) 

Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab) 

Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) 

Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD) 

Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) 

Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) 

Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) 

Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) 

Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD) 

Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) 

Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) 

Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) 

Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) 

Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD) 

Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) 

Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP) 

Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP) 

Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con) 

Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind) 

Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD) 

Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP) 

White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) 

Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) 

Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)

The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 13, Against 79, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 4 disagreed to.

Amendment 5 moved—[Carolyn Leckie].

The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.

FOR

Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green) 

Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green) 

Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green) 

Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP) 

Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP) 

Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP) 

Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) 

Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP) 

Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP) 

Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) 

Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green) 

Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)

AGAINST

Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP) 

Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) 

Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) 

Col 12090

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) 

Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) 

Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab) 

Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) 

Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 

Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) 

Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind) 

Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) 

Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) 

Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) 

Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) 

Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) 

Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con) 

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con) 

Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab) 

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP) 

Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) 

Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con) 

Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) 

Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) 

Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab) 

Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD) 

Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP) 

Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab) 

Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab) 

Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) 

Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) 

Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) 

Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab) 

Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) 

Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) 

Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) 

Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) 

Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP) 

Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD) 

MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP) 

Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab) 

Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab) 

Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) 

Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) 

Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) 

Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) 

Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP) 

Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP) 

May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab) 

McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) 

McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab) 

McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP) 

McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab) 

McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab) 

McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) 

McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) 

Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con) 

Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con) 

Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP) 

Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab) 

Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab) 

Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD) 

Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab) 

Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab) 

Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) 

Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab) 

Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD) 

Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) 

Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con) 

Scott, John (Ayr) (Con) 

Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab) 

Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD) 

Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD) 

Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) 

Col 12091

Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP) 

Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP) 

Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con) 

Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind) 

Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD) 

Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP) 

White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP) 

Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab) 

Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)

The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 12, Against 82, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 5 disagreed to.

Long Title

The Deputy Presiding Officer: Amendment 6 is in a group on its own.

Elaine Smith: Amendment 6 is a technical amendment that will merely—

The Deputy Presiding Officer: I am sorry, Ms Smith—members are being very noisy this afternoon. I will not tell you again to be quiet.

Elaine Smith: Amendment 6 will merely help the clarity of the bill on an issue that the Scottish Executive helpfully brought to my attention last week. I apologise to the Health Committee that the amendment was not considered at stage 2, but I hope that Parliament will agree that it is a practical amendment.

As it stands, the long title does not employ the exact wording of section 1. It is imperative that the bill be as precise as possible so that we end up with good law. The main thrust of the amendment is to replace "being fed milk" with "feeding milk" to ensure that there is no ambiguity. I ask Parliament to support the amendment.

I move amendment 6.

Mr Kerr: As Elaine Smith mentioned, the need for amendment 6 arose from the Executive's final consideration of the bill prior to today's meeting. The amendment, which is minor, was suggested to ensure consistency between the offence that is described in the long title and that which is described in section 1. The amendment will make no change to any significant aspects of the bill and, as such, the Executive supports it.

The long title currently refers to

"preventing or stopping a child from being fed milk",

whereas section 1 refers to preventing or stopping

"a person in charge of a child from feeding milk to that child".

The amendment is simply a tidying-up exercise that will ensure that the bill is as good as it can be. The Executive was happy to help in ensuring that.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Col 12092

The Deputy Presiding Officer: That ends the consideration of amendments.

Col 12093

Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Bill

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman): The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1968, in the name of Elaine Smith, that the Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Bill be passed. I call Susan Deacon to speak to and to move the motion.

15:45

Susan Deacon (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab): The Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Bill, if approved by Parliament today, will be a landmark piece of legislation for Scotland. I am delighted to open the debate, and I thank Elaine Smith for giving me the opportunity to do so.

A great many individuals and organisations have contributed to shaping the bill, and I know that Elaine Smith has a very long list of people whom she wants to thank in her closing remarks. I am sure that they all join me, as will colleagues in the chamber, in thanking Elaine for her supreme efforts in introducing the bill and for championing breastfeeding in Parliament. [Applause.]

Even before it has reached the statute book, the bill has raised awareness and changed attitudes. It has spawned debate and discussion, given us insight and understanding, and enabled us to get behind some deep-rooted and sensitive cultural issues in our society. It is worth remembering that, when Elaine Smith first mooted the proposal, many people thought that it was at best unnecessary and at worst daft. The usual suspects described it as political correctness gone mad, and even the more measured commentators said that it was just not a real issue. However, as letters appeared in the newspapers and submissions came in during the consultation process, it quickly became apparent that it is a real issue and that the oft-quoted cases of a woman being thrown off a Lothian bus for breastfeeding and of a woman being asked to leave the café in a well-known department store and to feed in the baby-changing room instead were not isolated incidents. It became clear that such experiences were real and had been shared by many women throughout Scotland.

It is testament to the efficacy of the workings of Parliament that through consideration of a bill proposal from a back-bench MSP, we were able to bring to the surface those experiences and give a voice to the women who had them. Not only that but, critically, through the personal stories and testimonies that emerged, we were able to identify a strong link between the feeding choices that are made by individual women and the attitudes, or perceived attitudes, of those around them. It is

Col 12094

easy for politicians to sign up to targets and principles, but the key is always to find the complex mix of policy, action, investment and—yes—sometimes legislation that will actually make a difference.

No one in this chamber would dispute the health benefits of breastfeeding to mother and baby. No one would suggest that the Executive or Parliament should do anything other than promote breastfeeding, and I think that everyone across the political spectrum signs up for the national breastfeeding target. Indeed, David Davidson has never missed an opportunity to remind us that it was, in fact, a Conservative Government that set that target. However, setting targets is one thing; achieving them is another. As the bill has been discussed through the parliamentary process, it has become increasingly clear that, if the rates of breastfeeding in Scotland are to continue to increase, we need to do something more and something different.

Education and awareness are vital; so, too, is the tremendous work that is done by midwives and health visitors in our maternity units and in the community. All that work has had, and is having, an impact. We must continue to build on that and I welcome the Executive's commitment to do so. However, all the evidence that was presented to us during the passage of the bill suggests that those efforts will not, in and of themselves, get us there. We need to go a step further in tackling culture and attitudes if Scotland is truly to become more breastfeeding friendly. The bill gives us a tremendous opportunity to do that.

Let me say for the avoidance of doubt that the bill is not about telling anyone what to do, least of all telling a woman how to feed her baby. That is a deeply personal choice and every woman should be respected for, and supported in, the decision that she makes, whether it be to feed from the breast or from the bottle. What the bill will do is provide legal protection for a baby to be fed where and when it needs to be fed, by breast or by bottle.

The detail of the bill has been subject to rigorous parliamentary and external scrutiny and the principles of the bill were overwhelmingly supported by Parliament at stage 1. Today, we need to take the next step and translate those provisions into the law of the land. In doing so, we will send out an important signal that, in a modern Scotland, we cannot allow breastfeeding to be treated as unacceptable or offensive behaviour. A woman should not be moved on from, or chucked out of, a public place for doing that most natural and necessary of things: feeding her baby. A woman should not have to go into a toilet or to sit in her car—if, indeed, she has one—simply to feed her baby. As one mother put it, a woman should not feel that she is under house arrest because

Col 12095

she feels that she is unable to feed her baby outside the privacy of her own home.

It is a fact—as we have heard during the bill's passage—that too many women in Scotland have not breastfed or have stopped breastfeeding earlier than they would have liked, not because they did not want to breastfeed, but because they felt that those around them would not like them to breastfeed. Part of the reason why is that our culture and our law tolerate the practice of excluding women from public places simply because they want to feed their babies. We must tackle that situation and we must all learn to feel more at ease with the sight of a baby at its mother's breast. Change will be gradual; it will not happen overnight. However, the bill will help us to bring about the much needed step-change in the culture and attitudes that I truly believe stand in the way not just of our achieving targets, but of our bringing about a genuine and positive societal shift in respect of breastfeeding in Scotland.

If we pass the bill, we will lead the way in the United Kingdom. However, we will not be in wholly uncharted terrain. Similar measures have been adopted in other countries and they have made a difference. I am in no doubt that we can also achieve such change in Scotland, partly through the range of measures and work that are already under way in the Executive, the health service, our schools and elsewhere but—crucially—we can also do so through the significant step forward of changing the law of our land through the bill. I believe that the bill is not only one of the most innovative measures that have been brought forward in Parliament, but one of the most practical and significant ones. The bill underscores our sincerity in wanting to give all our children the best possible start in life and in working tirelessly to improve the health of Scotland. The bill is an opportunity that we should grasp with both hands and take forward at decision time today.

I will end on a personal note. I genuinely appreciate Elaine Smith's giving me the opportunity to contribute to a debate that, as she knows, has a particular resonance for me. Not a lot of people know this, but about six years ago I sat in front of a Labour Party Scottish Parliament selection panel. One of the standard questions, as many colleagues here will recall, was, "If you had the chance to take a member's bill through the Scottish Parliament, what would it be?" At that time, I was a fairly new, bursting mum. Based on my experiences at that time, I waxed lyrical to the panel about how I would like to introduce a bill that would help to make breastfeeding more acceptable in Scotland, and about how important it was for us to change our culture and attitudes to make Scotland a more breastfeeding-friendly place. I got the knock-back from that particular selection panel and will never know whether my

Col 12096

choice of bill had anything to do with that. However, I do know this: while I merely aspired to doing something, Elaine Smith has done it. For that, she has my heartfelt admiration and thanks, both as a politician and as a mum.

This is, potentially, a landmark occasion for Parliament. To agree to the bill is the right thing to do. It will make a difference, so I am pleased and proud to move the motion in Elaine Smith's name.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Breastfeeding etc. (Scotland) Bill be passed.

15:54

The Minister for Health and Community Care (Mr Andy Kerr): I congratulate Susan Deacon on her opening speech on behalf of Elaine Smith. We owe thanks to Susan for that and to Elaine for bringing the bill before us.

I am grateful for the opportunity to convey the Executive's support for the bill. Although I was appointed to the health remit only recently, members may rest assured that I and my Cabinet colleagues have been following the progress of the bill throughout its time in Parliament.

I have been impressed by the level of support for and interest in the bill among members from across the political spectrum, which is good to see, although Conservative members demur from that. It is a great shame that they have been unable to support a measure that has the potential to have an important and valuable impact on the health and development of our youngest citizens. The rest of the Parliament should be proud of the support that it has offered Elaine Smith in developing such unique legislation. I offer my thanks to Elaine and members of the Health Committee for the scrutiny and hard work that they have undertaken to progress the bill thus far.

The bill has stimulated discussion about breastfeeding throughout the country and has proven to be much more than simply a piece of legislation. In my view, it has been a valuable vehicle for raising the profile of breastfeeding, particularly among groups in our society who might not normally engage in discussion of such topics. The importance of that should not be underestimated; after all, communication is the key to change.

Effective communication is already working. Over the past 10 years, many more of us have learned about the benefits of breastfeeding. We know that breastfeeding is good for our children's health and is also good for mothers' health. I point especially to the evidence from the Dundee infant feeding study, led by Professor Stewart Forsyth and his colleagues, that found that breastfeeding

Col 12097

can reduce health inequalities during childhood and might also alter the relationship between childhood socioeconomic disadvantage and poor adult health. All sorts of different aspects bring benefits for society at large. Therefore, we must do all that we can to improve breastfeeding rates in Scotland. That is why breastfeeding is a key part of the Executive's public health agenda and why we support Elaine Smith's bill.

The bill has not been introduced to curb the activities of licence holders or owners of public premises; it has been introduced to encourage, support and protect our citizens' rights to take part in vital health-promoting behaviour. The future act will create an environment throughout Scotland in which mothers feel free to participate in one of the most natural acts there is without fear of judgment and/or recrimination. It will mean that they can breastfeed where and when is most appropriate for them and their child—and, in future, without being in a smoky atmosphere. That is as it should be, because breast milk is the ultimate convenience food, to which the Executive and Elaine Smith lend their support.

The debate is not only about health, as we have heard from many members; just as important are the emotional and social bonds that are created between mother and child in the early years of infancy. Changes in attitude might not happen overnight, and the bill might not change the views of the most ardent critics, but it represents a major stepping-stone to achieving the behavioural and cultural shift that is needed in our country. It is only disappointing that the bill is required at all.

Last week, I was fortunate to be invited to speak at the United Nations Children's Fund—UNICEF—UK baby friendly initiative annual conference. It was a fantastic occasion, attended by 800 people from all over the UK who are involved in breastfeeding and breastfeeding promotion, including professionals, mothers, support workers and volunteers. When I spoke about Elaine Smith's bill, the enthusiasm for the steps that we are taking in our Parliament was tangible. I was bolstered and reassured by the delegates' comments about why the bill will be such important legislation.

We also celebrated the UNICEF UK baby friendly initiative, which is an accreditation programme. Hospitals and, more recently, community settings, such as local health care co-operatives, are encouraged to work to the high standards set by the initiative, with the aim of providing the highest level of infant feeding advice and support to new mothers. It was the first such conference in Scotland and I was happy to be given the chance to inform the conference of our excellent track record in the promotion and support of breastfeeding in Scotland.

Col 12098

Currently, 86 per cent of our maternity units participate in the scheme, which results in 48 per cent of our babies being born in hospitals that operate to the highest standards of care and support. That is a truly impressive record when we compare it with the average of 16 per cent in the rest of the UK.

That does not mean that the other 52 per cent of babies and mothers do not receive a high level of support in other hospital and community settings—14 of our 15 NHS boards are implementing dedicated breastfeeding strategies with the assistance and guidance of our national breastfeeding adviser, Jenny Warren.

Those facts are impressive in their own right and are due in no small part to the highly trained, committed and dedicated midwives, health visitors and infant feeding advisers throughout our country. I commend all those people for their efforts.

I spoke to the conference about the many examples of innovation and exciting practice in NHS boards in Scotland. Lanarkshire NHS Board is reinforcing the value of breastfeeding by displaying the slogan, "You can't get fitter than a breastfed nipper" on 32 of its vehicles. Tayside NHS Board has produced a video and training package entitled, "Is she getting enough?", which highlights the influence of partners, friends, extended family and health professionals on the decision whether to breastfeed. I visited stalls at the conference and I was impressed to see that Scottish material was being snapped up by delegates from the rest of the United Kingdom, because Scotland is regarded as the benchmark in the UK for the promotion of breastfeeding. Indeed, Greater Glasgow NHS Board hopes to win the first global UNICEF award for a paediatric unit. I also spoke about our national approach, through the work of the national breastfeeding adviser, the Scottish breastfeeding group and NHS Health Scotland.

Delegates were encouraged to hear about the work that I described, but delegates from the rest of the UK were most impressed by my references to the Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Bill. I am aware that not just Scotland, but the rest of the UK, is watching the progress of the bill. By introducing the bill, Elaine Smith has put Scotland on the map in relation to infant feeding. We have a real opportunity to show the rest of the world the way by supporting and passing the bill.

The figures for the uptake and duration of breastfeeding might not be as we want them to be, but we are working to drive them up. I commend Elaine Smith for her hard work and urge all members to support the motion.

Col 12099

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh): I call Fiona Hyslop to open for the Scottish National Party.

16:01

Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP): I pay tribute to Elaine Smith for introducing the bill and, more important, for presenting the bill and arguing the case in a way that has persuaded people who might have been reluctant to support the bill at the start of the process. That is a tribute, because any member can progress a bill on proposals that have people's initial support, but the test is to persuade people during the process. During the debate on the stage 3 amendments, I talked about the compromises that many people have made to make the process work.

I should declare an active interest as a current breastfeeding mum of a five-month-old baby—don't wrinkle your nose, Deputy Presiding Officer. That is the point; we must address attitudes. As a breastfeeding mother, I know that my child is at less risk of gastrointestinal infections, respiratory infections, urinary tract infections, ear infections, allergic diseases, eczema, asthma, wheezing and insulin-dependent diabetes. I also know that I am at less risk of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, hip fractures and bone-density problems. I say to anyone who reports the debate that if they think that the issue is frivolous and should not be addressed by the Parliament, they should consider those statements. This is a serious issue.

The solutions for public health are not necessarily easy. We have to consider whether to pass laws that lay us open to accusations of a nanny-state approach. We must also consider whether law can lead public opinion. Elaine Smith has demonstrated that the progress of legislation can lead and persuade public opinion, which is an important point.

I want to talk about life-changing experiences. Not only did I have a baby earlier this year, but I passed a significant birthday. A few weeks after the birth of my baby and after my birthday—[Interruption.] It was my 21st birthday. A few weeks after that, I was mightily surprised to be asked to take part in a health promotion exercise for breastfeeding awareness. I was to star in a calendar. Before members start anything, I explain that I am talking about an alternative calendar, which will be launched at Livingston Football Club on 2 December. It shows ordinary women from West Lothian—including me—breastfeeding their children in ordinary situations. The best picture was taken at the club and shows rows and rows of people, including mothers and babies, all of whom are dressed in Livingston colours. The calendar shows that breastfeeding is natural and I commend it to members and the minister as a

Col 12100

Christmas present. I took part in the promotion and was pleased to do so.

We should be relaxed about the issue—that is the whole point; we should not be uptight. That is where Carolyn Leckie misses the point—by getting so uptight. Breastfeeding is normal and natural.

What can we do to make a difference? How can we change perceptions? I have said before that I would prefer it if the legislation had been on the basis of antidiscrimination. The Queensland example is a good example of that, but we are not in that situation. I commend the committee for looking into the issue of criminal legislation and addressing it very seriously.

We have to address workplace situations. I would say to the Deputy Presiding Officer that continued breastfeeding in this place would be enhanced if, rather than the visitors' crèche, we had a workplace nursery. That might allow staff and MSPs to continue breastfeeding for longer than they would continue otherwise. [Applause.]

I refer the minister to section 4 on the promotion and support of breastfeeding. The UNICEF report was in July. One of the most serious issues that we will have to address—and I hope that the minister will do so—is the minister's powers under section 4. The 70 per cent of women who do not breastfeed after six weeks take that decision in the first few hours. Women are not being allowed to stay in hospital, with the support of midwives, in the early days after the birth of their child. They are not getting the medical provision that they need to continue breastfeeding. I appeal to the minister to examine the rates at which women are discharged from hospitals, because continued support by breastfeeding-supporting midwives would make a crucial difference.

Elaine Smith has done a marvellous job. She has persuaded people and that is the important thing. I hope that, in the days and years to come, we will have health ministers reporting that Scotland is leading the way rather than falling behind. Radical and considered measures are required and Elaine Smith should be congratulated on her proposals.

16:07

Mr David Davidson (North East Scotland) (Con): I, too, congratulate Elaine Smith on her dogged determination over several years—indeed, into her second session of Parliament—in pursuing her right as a back bencher to introduce a member's bill. I congratulate her on how she has gone about it. She has done so in a dignified manner, which does credit to the subject at heart.

We totally support the promotion of breastfeeding. There is no argument about that; 

Col 12101

no one in this chamber would be against it. However, I want to hear a bit more from the Executive about how it will support pre-birth mothers in gaining confidence, so that breastfeeding becomes an enjoyable habit, because the health benefits for the child and mother are undoubted.

When Fiona Hyslop declared some of her personal details, she named a number of things that she could avoid in life. One that she did not mention is rheumatoid arthritis. My wife will kill me for saying this but, despite feeding five babies by breast, she has developed rheumatoid arthritis. She may be the exception to the rule.

Mike Rumbles made an important point about the right to feed in law. There is also a right in the common law in Scotland not to be abused, manhandled and so on. The evidence that the committee heard from the police was that they did not think that many criminal charges would be brought if the new legislation goes through. I was speaking to a former policewoman today who had breastfed her child. She said that common-law remedies exist. If the police were invited to deal with an incident, they could do so under current law. If all else failed, they could use the well-rounded breach of the peace legislation. That has been done.

Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab): I recall from the evidence that was given to the committee that the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland said that it would not want to use breach of the peace legislation. The witnesses did not think that that was a realistic option.

Mr Davidson: The witnesses might have said that but, as I said, I talked to someone who was on the beat until very recently. They told me that the police were using the existing law. There is confusion on the subject.

As the minister rightly said, the key question is what we are going to do to increase the rates and duration of breastfeeding. Although I am pleased to hear that he wishes to promote both those things, his target of six months is adventurous, albeit that it is realistic. I wish him every success in trying to reach it.

The figures, which I also gave in the first debate on the subject, show that, following the targets that the Conservatives put in place, which have been supported by Government since that time, we reached 40 per cent in 2000. Unfortunately, since that time, the level has dropped to 36.5 per cent. The reasons for the drop in uptake must be examined carefully.

I agree with the comments that members have made about stigma. We need to ensure that legislation is practical, useful and delivers. The bill is supposed to be about encouraging more women

Col 12102

to breastfeed for longer. It is about uptake and duration, not about the creation of a criminal offence that is unlikely ever to be invoked. In fact, where such regulations exist, including in many of the American states, almost no charges have been pressed and no increase in breastfeeding rates has resulted. Although I fully support the ideas behind Elaine Smith's bid to improve breastfeeding rates, I cannot support the introduction of a criminal offence that, in all probability, will never be used.

16:11

Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): On behalf of the Liberal Democrat group, I congratulate Elaine Smith on her achievement. It is quite something for a back bencher to change Scots law—subject to the vote this evening, of course.

David Davidson's speech on behalf of the Conservatives was disappointing. Once again, the Conservative party is missing the point on the change from an offence in civil law to one in criminal law. At the moment, the onus is on the individual to fight a civil action through the court. Who would do that? Nobody. The practical objective of changing the offence from a civil offence to a criminal offence is to change attitudes.

Although I speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I warn Elaine Smith that the vote is not a whipped vote. I have recommended that the Liberal Democrat group supports the motion, but that is all I can do—who knows, it might have been counterproductive of me to have done so.

The bill is an inclusive bill; it is not just about making a new criminal offence of preventing a woman from breastfeeding a child, but about making it a criminal offence to prevent a person from feeding milk to a child under two years of age in a public place. The bill is not an exclusive but an inclusive piece of legislation. [Interruption] I am glad to hear that one of the babies in the public gallery is supporting me. I hope that the Minister for Parliamentary Business has noticed my comment about the inclusivity of the bill, particularly in view of what I said yesterday.

The bill is not about making a change in the law to give new rights to breastfeed in public. As other members have said, that right is allowed under Scots law at the moment; we are talking about changing attitudes. Everyone must realise that we cannot have people being removed from a public place simply because they are feeding a youngster.

As I said, the bill moves the onus from civil to criminal law, which is a point that, unfortunately, the Conservatives have missed. The bill sends a

Col 12103

clear message to everyone that, if they prevent a person from feeding milk to a youngster in a public place, their offence in so doing is so bad that it needs to be a criminal offence.

Once again, I congratulate Elaine Smith on introducing the bill. I am sure that all my Liberal Democrats colleagues will vote for it at decision time.

16:14

Dr Jean Turner (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind): I congratulate Elaine Smith on the bill. My experience over many years has taught me the difficulty of persuading people to breastfeed. Although rates have been going up, too many people fail. One of the most important parts of the bill is section 4, on the promotion and support of breastfeeding—

The Deputy Presiding Officer: I am sorry, Dr Turner, but I will have to stop you. Although two microphones are turned on in front of you, I understand that some members are having difficulty in picking you up.

Dr Turner: I am sorry, what is the problem?

The Deputy Presiding Officer: Could you position yourself closer to one of the microphones, Dr Turner?

Dr Turner: Can you hear me now?

The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can. Please start again.

I congratulate Elaine Smith. The bill is wonderful and makes a great statement. All my working life, I have found it extremely difficult to persuade people to breastfeed. Fiona Hyslop, who has been close to the subject recently, raised the most important points, which relate to section 4. I hope that that section, on the promotion and support of breastfeeding, will result in a great deal of effort being put into those activities in the antenatal and postnatal periods, in particular in hospital, in the special 48 hours after the birth, which is when some people find it difficult to breastfeed. Support requires time and staff, which are expensive. We need to put in a lot of effort in the few hours after birth. Nowadays, people are more frequently discharged early from hospital and go home to all their responsibilities—perhaps they have other children. When the child is a first one, people need home support, which takes time and people, and that requires money. I hope that section 4 will have an effect.

When people go home after giving birth, they often find that they have many well-intentioned relatives and friends who all want a wee share of the baby. They often persuade the mum that it would be much better if she bottle fed, because

Col 12104

that would give them a bigger share of the child. A young mother in that situation who is not very assertive needs a lot of home support with breastfeeding.

At first, I had difficulty with the bill's introduction of a criminal offence, but I have been persuaded about that. The culture in Scotland means that people do not talk about such matters and do not like to allow breastfeeding in public. Few people would ever make it difficult for a woman to breastfeed in public because, most of the time, we are not aware that people are breastfeeding, as it is done surreptitiously. It is odd that the Health Committee heard so much evidence about people having a bad time breastfeeding in public.

One good feature of the bill is that it raises awareness of the issue. In conversations, people have been telling me about their experiences 30, 20 and 10 years ago. It is about time that people in this country accepted breastfeeding as something physiological that is good for everybody. We all accept the benefits, which have been highlighted. Breastfeeding is good for the baby's and the mother's health and it should be promoted.

I thank Elaine Smith for all her hard work. I took on board her evidence and the other evidence that the committee took. I fully support her and I wish the bill well. I hope that ministers read section 4 and provide support for the promotion of breastfeeding at the crucial time, which is just before and just after the baby is born. Too many people give up too easily.

16:18

Janis Hughes (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab): I, too, thank Elaine Smith for introducing the bill and for the dedication that she has shown during the process. I also thank the Health Committee clerks for their hard work and support as we worked through the bill.

In scrutinising the bill, the committee sought to address several issues. The principal ones were whether evidence exists that mothers are likely to encounter adverse reactions to breastfeeding their child; whether such reactions are likely to inhibit the take-up and duration of breastfeeding; and whether introducing a criminal offence of deliberately preventing a person from breastfeeding would increase the take-up and duration of breastfeeding. It was difficult for the committee to access definitive research that details how common it is for women to be asked to leave a public place when breastfeeding. However, witnesses from the National Childbirth Trust and the Breastfeeding Network said that, in the course of their work, they were regularly in contact with women who have encountered such problems. While that evidence is clearly anecdotal,

Col 12105

the committee accepted that there is evidence to support the view that mothers often experience adverse reactions to breastfeeding in public. There was also a clear consensus among witnesses that such reactions—or, at least, the fear of provoking them—inhibited mothers from breastfeeding in public. Therefore, the committee accepted that such attitudes could have a negative impact on breastfeeding rates.

We have heard a lot today about the fact that the bill seeks to make it a criminal offence to prevent or stop a child being fed milk. The issues surrounding that criminalisation were more complex. Some witnesses were strongly of the view that criminalisation would make more women confident and assured about feeding in public, but others were not so sure. The committee heard from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland that, rather than make the prevention of breastfeeding a criminal offence, it might be preferable to include a statutory provision on breastfeeding in the licences and charters of public establishments. However, we heard evidence from Elaine Smith and from Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre that that would mean that some public places would be missed out.

It can certainly be argued that the principal reason for the bill is not punitive and that the possibility of legal action should simply act as a deterrent. Elaine Smith is keen that the bill should not lead to a large number of prosecutions and intends the purpose to be to change attitudes and to make women feel more comfortable about breastfeeding in public. David Davidson commented that, in other places in the world where it is an offence to prevent breastfeeding, the law has not been invoked, but it is not a good argument to say that, because the law would never be used, the prevention of breastfeeding should not be made a criminal offence. The fact is that we seek to make it a criminal offence as a deterrent to those who seek to prevent or stop women breastfeeding in public places. There was little doubt in the committee that legislation can have a positive impact on changing attitudes and behaviour.

On the duty on Scottish ministers to support and encourage breastfeeding, Malcolm Chisholm, when he was Minister for Health and Community Care, told the committee that the Executive's general commitment to promote health improvement in the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Bill might render it unnecessary to include a specific duty on the promotion of breastfeeding. However, the committee fully supported the measures in the bill to promote the take-up and duration of breastfeeding and did not accept that the continuing discussions on the issue should hinder the bill's progress.

Col 12106

The bill is not about making it illegal to breastfeed babies over a certain age; it is about ensuring that breastfeeding and bottle-feeding mothers and babies are given equal and unimpeded access to public services and spaces. It will also have a key role to play in changing attitudes and ensuring that mothers no longer feel inhibited about breastfeeding in public. Therefore, I am happy to give it my full support today and to recommend that the Parliament pass the bill.

16:23

Carolyn Leckie (Central Scotland) (SSP): Members need not be nervous, because I will not be using any provocative language.

I reiterate that I feel positive about the bill. It is a tremendous achievement and the Scottish Socialist Party will support it despite our amendments not being agreed to. It was important to press the arguments in those amendments, because it is clear that prejudice and stigma continue to exist and need to be addressed.

Elaine Smith knows that, as she has argued in the past, the bill is not a panacea that will ensure the promotion of breastfeeding; nor is it the only way to increase breastfeeding rates and the length of time for which babies are breastfed. I will concentrate some remarks on those issues.

Contrary to allegations made earlier, the last thing that the SSP needs this week is publicity. I have an extremely long record—since 1986—of promoting and supporting breastfeeding. In 1986, when my first daughter was born, I lived in Castlemilk in Glasgow, which is just the sort of community where breastfeeding rates are extremely low—even lower than they are now. I was 21 and just as bolshie as I am now, but perhaps in a different way. It took a lot of determination for a young, working-class woman in Castlemilk to breastfeed, surrounded as I was by bottle-feeding friends, families that all bottle fed and society's attitudes towards breastfeeding.

I am immensely proud of doing that. It was the start of my promotion of and support for breastfeeding. I challenged my relatives, my friends and my community. In 1986 I established the first ever breastfeeding support group in Castlemilk with the help of the National Childbirth Trust and my local health visitor, who was excellent. It shames me that I cannot remember her name, but she is out there somewhere and she was very helpful. That started a long period of promoting breastfeeding and challenging stigma and it was mainly that experience that influenced my decision in 1992 to become a midwife. I was particularly interested in promoting choice for women in childbirth and an increase in support and resources for breastfeeding women.

Col 12107

Unfortunately, problems remain. I had many positive experiences as a midwife in the health service but I also had many negative experiences. I had to challenge the attitudes of fellow professionals and the medical establishment and I had to work in an under-resourced environment in which people are forced to make impossible choices, such as the choice between staying with a distraught early-breastfeeding mother who needs support and going to attend to an emergency. No midwife should have to make such choices, and that is my continuing challenge to the Executive. All those things need to be tackled if there is to be a real difference in the incidence and continuance of breastfeeding. Baby-friendly initiatives need to be backed up with resources and staff. Otherwise, they are just bits of paper.

I finish by again congratulating Elaine Smith. I want to make sure that no one makes the mistake of thinking that we do not support the bill—we absolutely do, but it is also normal and natural too to feed beyond the age of two.

16:27

Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab): I too congratulate Elaine Smith on her determination and application in steering the bill through Parliament. Turning a member's bill into statute is not an easy matter and even with the support that she has been given both inside and outside the Parliament most of the burden must have fallen on her shoulders. I congratulate her on the commitment and effort that she has shown.

There have been many obstacles in the way of the bill, not least the negative and hostile attitudes that the proposal to encourage breastfeeding—or even just to normalise it—has provoked. It never ceases to amaze me, even in these relatively liberal and liberated times, how much work we have to do to overcome the dark forces of reaction, ignorance, antipathy and inertia—or the Tories, as we more affectionately call them. It is clear from the way in which David Davidson and his colleagues are voting this afternoon that we still have some way to go.

Of course, there are some behaviours that we cannot change. When I spoke during the stage 1 debate on the bill, I said that my interest was more than academic because my wife, Claire, was heavily pregnant. The good news is that she gave birth two weeks ago to a baby girl, Annie. As we speak Claire is either breastfeeding, between feeds or, if she is incredibly lucky, catching up on some sleep while the baby rests. I was tempted to move an amendment at stage 2 to make it illegal for babies to feed between midnight and 6 o'clock in the morning. I have no doubt that that would do wonders for exhausted new mums and dads, but I recognise that babies are only doing what comes

Col 12108

naturally. The same cannot be said of the prejudice, hostility and discrimination that are too often shown to breastfeeding mothers: those are entirely social attitudes and learned behaviours.

Before I get too sanctimonious, I should admit that I still have a distance to travel in challenging my own attitudes. The speeches at stage 1 were excellent—they were more personal than we are used to but all the more illuminating for that. As usual, a passionate contribution came from Carolyn Leckie, who spoke of her first militant breastfeed against her father-in-law from her hospital bed. Unfortunately, my first reaction was to feel sorry for her father-in-law but perhaps, as I said, I have some way to travel.

The bill creates new criminal sanctions, but it is not its intention or my wish to criminalise otherwise law-abiding members of society. The aim is to change behaviour and to challenge negative attitudes. More than anything, the bill is about normalising and accepting absolutely natural behaviour.

I will conclude with another personal experience that is up to date. Last week, my wife, Claire, was in our local library with the kids at a storytelling event for children. Members can imagine that, after having four children, Claire is comfortable with breastfeeding. She asked the librarian, who is a lovely woman, whether it was all right to feed the new baby. The librarian said that she was fine with the idea, but that others might object, so she asked whether Claire would mind using the back room. The only things that should be put in the back room are old-fashioned and outdated attitudes. The bill will help to make that happen and I commend it to the Parliament.

16:30

Eleanor Scott (Highlands and Islands) (Green): I add my voice to those that have supported Elaine Smith and commended her for her work. When I had a word with her in the canteen queue the other day, she said that the culmination of three years' work had been reached. She has done an amazing amount of work on the bill, which will be a tremendous piece of legislation. I am happy to support it and to congratulate her on it.

In earlier debates, we heard upsetting stories of problems that mothers who feed their children in public places have faced in the recent past. I hope that the bill consigns such incidents to the past.

The health effects of breastfeeding are well-known and have been widely aired and discussed in the debate and at earlier stages. We all want the Scottish rate of 36 per cent breastfeeding at six weeks to increase. In some areas, the figure is better. The highest rate in Scotland is in Orkney,

Col 12109

where it is nearly 70 per cent. That can be partly attributed to the excellent support that mothers there receive. The same team of midwives and general practitioners looks after mothers antenatally as looks after mothers and children in hospital and postnatally. That is quality care that is different from that which is received in a large specialist unit. As the figures show, breastfeeding can have a lasting effect on all children's health by conferring on children positive benefits. Specialist units cannot always match such figures.

I hope that the bill will help us to improve Scotland's breastfeeding