 That concludes topical questions. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 12548, in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the wildlife management and Muirburn Scotland's bill. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request to speak button now. I call on Martin Whitfield to move the motion. Ie. No member has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 1, 2, 5, 4, 8 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Worldlike Management and Muirburn Scotland Bill. In dealing with amendment, the member should have the bill as amended at stage 2, that is Scottish Parliament Bill 24A, the Marshalled List. The supplement to the Marshalled List and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes from the first division. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons or enter request-to-speak in the chat as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the Marshalled List of amendments. We move to group 1, Glue Traps. I call amendment 38 in the name of Christine Grahame, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Christine Grahame, to move amendment 38 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 38, and the arguments that I make in support of amendment 38 will apply equally to amendment 39. My intention with other amendments in the group is only to reference and detail the Scottish Government's amendment 11. I do not support licensing, but I want to specifically speak to that. As I am calling, my amendment deletes in section 1 subsection 1. It makes the line that it is an offence for a person to use a glue trap for the purpose of killing or taking any animal other than an invertebrate. So it is an outright ban, except for an invertebrate. Now, as far as I knew until Tuesday last week, that was the Government's position. But then up pops amendment 11 in the Government's name. In the name of Minister Jim Fairlie, and I welcome to his position, but I'm not going to make life easy for him. Amendment 11 states, after section 3, headed authorisation for use, supply or possession of glue trap, and states in subsection 1. The Scottish ministers may, by regulations, make a scheme for the authorisation of the use, supply or possession of glue traps. Quotes the scheme A by specified persons, B in specified circumstances. Now, I'll pre-empt the Government's debate, because they'll continue to say that their policy position is that they believe in an outright ban. But I'm interested in the law, and the law is fixed. And the law in this case is not an outright ban, because if this particular amendment passes, it means that once the bill is law, there is an opening. Notwithstanding in very peculiar circumstances for the Government to introduce a licensing scheme. So, in common parlance, it's not a ban, and policy is quite distinct from what is legal. Now, if I look at the Government's history on this, in the policy memorandum, which is what they put out when they were taking consultation, introduced with the bill on 21 March 2003, the Government said specifically, ban the use and purchase of glue traps. And in sections 1 to 3, and I'm quoting from the memorandum, devices used for a variety of purposes primarily to control ground rodents, the glue traps work by placing them along areas where rats and mice are likely to frequent. Once the animal steps onto the board, it is then firmly stuck to it, and is unable to free itself. Once an animal is captured, the intention is that the glue trap can be retrieved and the animal is dispatched. Same memorandum. In the policy memorandum details, there has been significant and ongoing concern, quotes regarding the welfare implications of the use of glue traps as they can result in prolonged suffering and are indiscriminate in nature and can unintentionally trap non-target species. I'd insert here, Presiding Officer, I'm not against trapping and capturing rodents, I'm against the use of glue traps, a very specific complaint. In response to concerns by animal welfare groups and petition PE1671 to the Scottish Parliament calling for a ban on the sale and use of glue traps, the Government sought the advice from the Independent Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which said on 23 March 2021 and published a report, quotes. The report acknowledges that there are, quote, certain high-risk situations that clearly require effective and rapid pest control, but was not convinced that evidence exists supporting a view that glue traps are genuinely the only method of last resort and the probe went on to give examples of other effective alternative methods. The SAWC report acknowledged the animal welfare impacts of the use of glue traps. It concluded, and I quote, that there is no way that glue traps can be used without causing animal suffering and that they pose, quotes, an undeniable risk of capture of non-target species. Further, it stated, quotes, its preferred recommendation that the animal welfare issues connected with the use of glue traps would justify an immediate outright ban on their sale and use. I underline outright ban. So it's clear that myself and others believed and no wonder that the Scottish Government position was unequivocal and outright ban. No regulations of the future, no parking it for something else. Indeed, this is reinforced by a whole string of parliamentary questions and in the interest of time, I'll only quote a few, 20 of January 2022, Siwon Brown, now a minister, asked an oral question on ban and has told quotes we will introduce legislation to ban glue traps in this parliamentary term. In 2031 of May 2022, Mary McCallan says as minister quotes, we have committed to ending the use of glue traps, which is a particularly cruel and harmful practice. In June 2022, in answer to Sandra Gilhanea raised issues about the health issues, quotes the answer there was, I set out our plan to introduce a ban on the sale and use of glue traps. And in October 2022, Michael Masison made reference to work quotes on going on banning glue traps. So throughout all the sequence in my foolishness, I thought we were banning glue traps. At stage 2, Edward Mountain quite rightly brought forward amendments towards a licensing scheme, which he wanted to introduce in certain circumstances. There was a debate. He then, on the responses by the minister, did not pursue the amendments and said, we come back later to them. What the minister then said was, however, it's especially important in relation to food. The only way of ensuring that is to use a glue trap, I know from persons with, sorry, this is Edward Mountain's quote. However, it is especially important in relation to food. The only way of ensuring that is to use a glue trap, I know from personal experience that you can set traps for vermin such as rats and mice, but they can become trap shy and some of them are pretty clever. And he goes on to say, I do not see any reason why that should not be allowed, especially if the glue traps are set and checked within a set period. I think that's a humane way of doing it. He's entitled to say it, I disagree. But then we go on to the response from Gillian Martin, then the minister. Edward Mountain's amendment would allow members of the public to use glue traps to control rats and mice in educational catering or medical premises. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission published a report on glue traps that concluded that, not a quote again, animal welfare issues connected with the use of glue traps would justify an immediate and outright ban on their sale and use, because the weight of evidence that glue traps are the least humane method of road at control and they can cause unacceptable levels of suffering to the animals that are caught by them. Continuing to allow their use was not considered to be a viable option. More than three quarters of respondents to our consultation also agreed that glue traps should be banned completely in Scotland. Could you please bring your remarks to a conclusion? The point I'm making was, I think it does deserve to be re-emphasised, that until stage three there was no notion that we were going to have a backdoor system of regulation. I'm not lost to understand why the Scottish Government, what seems to me not compromise but as a matter of appeasement, will continue to be passed to introduce by the backdoor a licensing scheme against all the evidence that is inhumane. Wales introduced an outright ban effective on 17 October 2023. Why on earth this Government doesn't do the same, I don't understand. I quote, if I may, just briefly. Very briefly, Ms Graham. The Welsh Minister said this. This is a historic day for animal welfare. We will strive for the very high standards of animal welfare in Wales and the use of snares and glue traps are incompatible with what we want to achieve. I wish my own Government took the same view of things. I call Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 40 and other amendments in the group. Presiding Officer, glue traps are barbaric, they are cruel and they are indiscriminate. Rats and mice and sometimes non-targeted species who get stuck by traps often remain there until the person who set the trap comes to kill them. I'm sure that I don't have an opportunity to speak in the debate, but I'll give away at this point them. I thank the member for giving away. That's twice I've heard this afternoon, non-targeted species. In the environments that we're talking about, inside buildings, what are the non-targeted species that could be caught apart from rats and mice? Any animal crossing a glue trap will be caught. The reality is that the cruelty to rats and mice is absolutely clear for everyone. To see those animals who are sent to it suffer a pollen distress during this time, whoever sets those traps, which is why, frankly, they should be banned, and that ban should be watertight. It is typical of Edward Mountain that, once again, the do-nothing attitude is adopted by him and he's unwilling to look at any alternatives. Amendment 40, in my name, aims to close a loophole that is within the proposed ban by making it an offence to not only cause or permit another unauthorised person to use a glue trap. On the offence of using a glue trap, the explanatory notes accompanying the bill on page 3.11 state, the offence does not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse for using or setting a glue trap. For example, it is not the intention to criminalise circumstances where a person is compelled to use a glue trap by a workplace superior. That raises the prospect that someone could get round the ban by compelling someone else to use a trap. Causing or permitting offences are used in a wide variety of legislation to prevent individuals from escaping sanctions when they have made or allowed another person to commit an offence on their behalf. In fact, there is an example of such provision at section 9.2b of the bill making it an offence to cause or permit another person to make mureburn without a licence. I brought an amendment at stage 2 to include such a provision in section 1 on glue traps. The previous minister acknowledged the need for such a clause but asked me not to move my amendment and for the Government to consider alternative wording that they have done in which I will move at the appropriate time. Amendments 38 and 39 in the name of Christine Grahame appear to have a similar aim to my amendment and would remove without reasonable excuse from the offence. Amendment 40 is a more appropriate solution but I would happily support amendments 38 and 39 if pressed by Christine Grahame. The wording of my amendment makes reference to an unauthorised person. That reflects the fact that the Government has proposed amendments for exceptions to the glue traps' use, supply and possession offences so long as a person is authorised under the scheme with such an authorisation scheme requiring regulations to establish it. I have to say that I share Christine Grahame's concerns over that. Well, that is certainly preferable to a licensing scheme as proposed by Edward Mountain in amendments 41 to 43, which simply attempts to undermine any ban. It does concern me that the Government is bringing forward amendments that will make a material change to the bill very late in the day with absolutely no discussion with Opposition MSPs, tabled at the last minute, making it almost impossible to scrutinise those amendments. Never mind proposing any changes to them if we had concerns. Well, as we have heard, there is a full ban in Wales that is deeply disappointing at the 11th hour that the Scottish Government is watering down their proposed ban. Notwithstanding this, I hope in his comments that the Minister will make it absolutely clear that the use of this enabling power would only be considered in the future if there was strong evidence to suggest a complete ban on the use of glue traps was given rise to significant public health problems. Any authorisation was granted only as a very last resort in exceptional circumstances for time-limited periods. I also hope that the Minister will make it clear to the industry that any authorisation scheme would be a temporary step, and the expectation will be that the industry will adopt alternative methods, as the Government's Scottish Animal Welfare Commission said, should happen if an authorisation scheme was adopted. We know that in other countries, and maybe this is something that Edward Mountain should look at, such as New Zealand, where they brought in a similar scheme in 2015, the number of applications decreased significantly over the years, and in the last few years there have not been any applications at all. The Minister must make it absolutely clear to the industry that that is what he expects to see happen in Scotland. I fully understand the reasons that Ms Graham has for bringing forward her amendments, however. I am unable to support them. When introducing criminal offences, it is common to frame such offences in a way that allows the person to put forward a reasonable excuse for why the offence was committed. It is not a loophole, and as a former lawyer and a chair of the Justice Committee, I am sure that Christine Grahame will appreciate that it must always be for the Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service, and ultimately the courts to determine whether the person accused of committing an offence can demonstrate that they had a reasonable excuse for doing so. For those reasons, I cannot support those amendments and encourage members to vote against them. Can the minister explain to me how he can have a reasonable excuse when something is banned? I will come on to the point that Christine Grahame makes as I will get through my notes. Under the Wildlife and Countyside Act 1981, it is an offence to knowingly cause or permit someone to use other types of illegal wildlife traps, so I think it right that there should be an equivalent offence for the use of glue traps. I thank Colin Smyth for bringing forward his amendment, which I think is helpful addition to the bill and one that I will be happy to support. Turning to amendments 41, 42, 43 and 44 in the name of Edward Mountain, when I asked the report on the use of rodent glue traps, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, we are clear that there is no way that glue traps can be used without causing animal suffering. I do not support Edward Mountain's amendment to introduce a licensing scheme for their use by pest controllers and encourage members to vote against them. Given the minister and his predecessors had ample time to raise concerns around a total ban in glue traps, why was it, as Colin Smyth has already said, that at the very last minute there was a U-turn from the Government? Completely different from what Gillian Martin said, and he gave no indication whatsoever at stage 2. Why was it done at the last minute, giving the Parliament very little time to consider those amendments and potentially bring forward valid amendments to the Government's amendments? Clearly, Finlay Carson is going to set the tone of the debate today, and I will come on to why we have forgotten enabling power. Turning now to my own amendments in this group, put simply they do the following. Amendments 4, 5 and 6 make it an offence for a person to sell or possess a rodent glue trap. The bill already makes it an offence to use a glue trap when the Scottish Government has always been clear that it intends to bring forward amendments also to ban their sale and possession. A ban on the sale will ensure that members of the public cannot buy these products in Scotland. It will also enable trading standards officers to act against anyone selling these products, thereby providing an additional aid to law enforcement. A ban on possession will allow law enforcement to remove products from individuals before they are used. This is especially important given the severe welfare implications that are associated with the use of those products. My amendments also remove the offence of purchasing a glue trap with a full ban on the use, sale and possession of glue traps in place. The net effect is that someone would be unable to loftily obtain a glue trap, and so an offence of purchasing a glue trap would be unnecessary. For those reasons, I would encourage members to vote for amendments 4, 5 and 6. The use of glue traps has already been banned completely in Wales and England, and England has banned their use by members of the public, so we already have a differential approach in two parts of the United Kingdom. The Scottish Government is still engaging in discussions with the UK Government on the matter of an exclusion to the internal market act in relation to the sale and possession of glue traps. A ban on the sale and possession of the sale of glue traps would have a negligible effect on the market for glue traps in the rest of the UK, and I see no reason why the UK Government is not to support such an exclusion. Discussions for that exclusion will continue, however, I see no reason not to take this opportunity to legislate to ban the possession and sale of glue traps at this moment. The internal market act should not be allowed to undermine the power of this Parliament to legislate in areas within a devolved competence, and I would hope not to be used on this occasion to prevent an exclusion on this matter. My amendments 29 to 36 have the effect of allowing trading standards officers to investigate the offences relating to the supply and possession of glue traps. Trading standards officers respond to and investigate consumer complaints and conduct routine inspection of businesses to ensure that they are complying with legislation and are not selling prohibited products. Those officers have equivalent powers in relation to other items. For example, recently, their powers were extended to cover fireworks. They have a statutory duty to combat illegal trading, and I therefore think that it is sensible to extend their powers so that they can investigate any complaints that a businesses continue to sell glue traps in contravention of the ban. For those reasons, I encourage members to vote for amendments 29 to 36. The Scottish Government position is clear that we should have a comprehensive ban on the use, sale and possession of rodent glue traps. We do not consider that the continued use of glue traps is necessary and there are sufficient alternatives available. The evidence from countries where glue traps have already been banned, such as the Republic of Ireland and most recently Wales, demonstrates to me that a full ban can be brought in without any negative impacts arising and that successful control of rodents in settings such as hospitals is possible without the need to resort to glue traps. I see no reason to suggest that it will be any different in Scotland. However, during the bill's process, I also heard from the British Press Controllers Association who raised concerns that increased rodenticide resistance in rodent populations is a real possibility, which could lead to a situation in the future where professional controllers have very limited options to deal with an infestation in a high-risk area. Having listened to those concerns and reflecting on the need to respond to infestations in a swift manner, I believe that it is prudent to include an enabling power in the bill. I think that it is a helpful addition that will help to future-proof the bill, as we have done in other areas as well. My amendments 1, 3 and 11 therefore provide Scottish ministers with the ability to create a tightly regulated authorisation to allow the use, possession and sale of glue traps in exceptionally limited circumstances and with several safeguards to reduce animal suffering not at the moment. The power sets out the scheme can only be used to allow authorisations where no other method of rodent control is practicable and where such authorisation is necessary or expedient for the purposes of protecting public health. It also sets out the scheme can put conditions on the authorisations such as limiting the circumstances in which they are authorised to use a glue trap or requiring that training be completed. The supply of glue traps would also be restricted to only authorised suppliers and it would be a condition of the authorisation that those suppliers could only sell to persons who were authorised to use those traps. I want to be clear. My intention is that the authorisation scheme would only be considered in the future in the event that there was a strong evidence to suggest that a complete ban on the use of such products was giving rise to significant public health concerns. For those needed reasons, I encourage members to vote for amendments 1, 3 and 11. I am going to try again and it is in the spirit of this debate and passing legislation. Can the minister maybe lay out when he first heard the concerns of the British pest control organisation and what made the minister change his mind and bring forward at the very last minute amendments to reflect those concerns? The reason that we brought forward this amendment was to allow enabling power is because we listened. We heard what people were telling us and that there was a genuine concern. Your own colleagues sitting in the chamber behind you has told us that there was a problem. Always through the chair. We listened to those concerns and it would be prudent in the extreme to make sure that we have something in place just in case there is an emergency. Now the member is well aware of what a flit of rats looks like. If we have a building demolished in Glasgow for instance and we get a flit of rats moving from one place to the other and they decide to get into a hospital or a food preparation area, those are the kind of circumstances that I would envisage where glue traps could be used in very limited circumstances. The power sets out the scheme can only be used to allow authorisations where no other method of rodent control is practicable and where it is necessary or expedient to do so for the purposes of protecting public health, is what I've just said. It also sets out that Scottish ministers can put conditions on the authorisations. Conditions could be things like requiring users must have completed an accredited training course, the authorised persons must adhere to the standards set out by the training course and the authorised persons must stay on site while any glue traps are set. Sales would also be restricted to only authorised suppliers and conditions can be placed in those authorisations to reduce the risk that members of the public would be able to continue to purchase and use glue traps. For example, it may be a condition that glue traps are kept behind the sales counter. This power is subject to affirmative procedure and so if an instrument was laid to create an authorisation scheme it would be for this Parliament to decide whether such a scheme should come into effect. My remaining amendments 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are all consequential amendments to the other amendments in this group and I encourage the members to vote for them. Thank you and I call Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 41 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and let me start off by saying that I fear this afternoon I may be on the different side of the debates when it comes to some of the subject matter to Christine Graham and Colin Smyth, but there is one thing that unites us this afternoon, I feel, and that is the absolute shock that the Government laid an amendment less than 24 hours before the closing time of amendments to change something that had gone through both stage 1 and stage 2 of the debates. We had debated this at some length and I tried to debate it with the Minister who refused to consider the options that I put forward in amendments 41, 42, 43 and 44, but now we're in a situation where the amendment put forward by the Government are virtually the same. Wouldn't it have been nice if we were going to work out how to do legislation properly in this Parliament if the Minister had taken us, those who have been involved in the debate, to one side and discussed this before just laying down in a somewhat arrogant way, in a minute Minister, in a somewhat arrogant way the amendments that the Minister has put forward. Minister, I will give way to you. The difference between what Edward Mountain was proposing was a licensing scheme that could be given to any pest controller who don't actually have accreditation in this country. What we're proposing is that ministers have the final say and it will be only in extreme circumstances. Edward Mountain. Well, there you go. The Minister is still not listening. What I was talking about was following parliamentary procedure and talking to those people who were raising amendments. It might well have been that my amendments were not required if the Government had laid their amendments and discussed them with sufficient time to allow me to either withdraw them or to change them, but that wasn't to happen. Now, I've heard a lot of talk this afternoon about why these glue traps shouldn't be used and I've heard it in stage one and stage two, but my point is that my amendments are very straightforward to allow the use of glue traps in very specific circumstances and that's in educational, catering and medical premises. Now, there's a reason behind that. The reason is that the last thing you want to use in a hospital is poison. The last thing you want to see littered round hospitals are traps. The last thing you want to see in schools is poisoned animals that are lying there having been killed as a result of poison being laid or traps being set. That's not what we want, which is why glue trap, if set properly, could be removed at the beginning of the day and the end of the day to make sure that there was no evidence of what had happened and there was no chance of children or patients coming into contact with poison. I find it quite bizarre, actually, that this Parliament spoke at some length about banning glue traps when, in the basement, glue traps were being used to get rid of the mice infestation that we add down there. That's quite odd, isn't it? Odd that we should be talking about it at the same time as using it. I've also heard this afternoon from Mr Smith about non-target species. I'm not sure what non-target species are apart from mice and rats inside buildings. I'm not sure what other mammals or animals are running around in buildings apart from mice and rats. I will take an intervention. Christine Grahame? Perhaps the factory cat is wondering about who's there to keep the mice down so cats can get stuck in them. There's one example. Edward Mountain. The member would know that if you're setting a glue trap that you don't leave it open to the elements, that you cover it to make sure that cats and domestic animals don't go in there. That's the sort of logical thing that you would do. My amendments that I've raised this afternoon and raised at stage two was about bringing in a licensing scheme, a licensing scheme that would allow people to use glue traps in specific circumstances where there was no other way of controlling rats and mice in environments such as schools, catering and medical premises. I don't believe that Minister Felly's recommendations, which came at the very last moment, actually are the right way to go. I think that my licensing scheme is the right way to go. I'm going to leave it to the Parliament to decide, but I do think that on reflecting, Minister, when you do reflect on this post today, that you might think that it might be more inclusive to talk to members before submitting last minute amendments on subjects that haven't even been discussed at stage one or stage two. I do not have any amendments in this group. I wish to briefly speak to the Minister's amendments on glue trap. I concur with the comments from my colleague Edward Mountain on the lack of notice that we were given, and Colin Smyth as well, and Finlay Carson, who intervened on the Minister, that we did not have enough time to consider these amendments and to scrutinise what they meant and how that would play out. I welcome that the Minister has rode back on the Scottish Government's initial plans to ban glue traps outright. That would have had a devastating effect on hospitality, food and drink industry. I register my interests, but we don't use glue traps, alongside risking the safety of vulnerable Scottish residents in hospitals, care homes and supported living. In a recent survey carried out by the British Pest Control Association, out of 116 respondents, 65 per cent stated that a ban on glue traps would impact their ability to control rodent infestations. Respondents reported that glue traps had the lowest rate of behavioural resistance, making them a more reliable option in a last resort situation. Therefore, I am pleased that the minister's amendments acknowledge that the glue traps are an important tool to protect public health. I also agree with my colleague Edward Mountain's amendments to bring forward such a licensing scheme. You may be interested to know that an FOI request showed that 200 glue traps have been used here in the Scottish Parliament since this bill was tabled last March, spanning over two pest management treatments. Without those treatments, Parliament buildings could have been closed to infestations, and we have very important matters to discuss here, and business should ensure that we carry on. Reserving glue boards for pest professionals is the best way to balance the public health risks against animal welfare concerns. Would the minister describe the circumstances in which ministers would bring forward secondary legislation? That sounds like something that is pretty regular in terms of demolishing buildings. He is not listening, but he did say something about demolishing buildings and rap packs moving between buildings. That sounds like something that, in most cities, would be pretty routine. Does he anticipate, on the basis of what the minister said, that some kind of licensing scheme is inevitable anyway? We will see what the minister brings forward. This is an everyday situation that we have to deal with. It is not a new situation. As I said, the minister is absolutely right to roll back on their initial plans and to get this right. I just hope that the minister is going to work in good faith with members of the industry and stakeholders groups to create a scheme that is workable and, ultimately, possibly look at Edward Mountain's suggestion of consulting on a licensing scheme. However, we have seen those amendments. They have not had an opportunity to be looked at, to be consulted on, to be reviewed, to be scrutinised, and I find that deeply disappointing. I call on Christine Grahame to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 38. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It is an extremely important debate, and I share concerns around the chamber at, in any legislation, substantive amendments being lodged at the last minute. I think that the key to this are two key things. Number one, the Animal Welfare Commission has determined, completely independent body, that this causes extreme suffering and is in humane. I am not opposed to control its particular method. The minister has said that this is a ban, but then goes on to say that, if the regulations that he has now got enabling at the last minute come in by affirmative procedure, which is at least one thing, it will be in extreme circumstances. It is not a ban. The definition of ban, the old teacher in me comes out from middle English to banish. We are not banishing it. We are qualifying that, modifying it by saying in certain circumstances that it won't be banished. Finally, I say to everyone, my huge concern about regulation and licensing in any circumstance, we saw this with snaring. It very much depends on the personnel who are doing it. If things are regularly checked, if glue traps are regularly checked, they are not always going to be because that has not been our experience with snaring. To me, a straightforward answer is simply to ban, and I did not know what was happening in the Parliament. I am shocked, is to ban glue traps and to use alternative methods of pet control, and I press my amendment. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore there will be a division, and as this is the first division off the stage, I will suspend for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.