division_name: [S1M-1750.1 (Amendment)] Decision Time
motion: <p>This looks like the vote on S1M-1750.1</p><p>The description in the <a href="http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/businessBulletin/bb-01/bb-03-15f.htm">bulletin on 2001-03-15</a> is:</p><p class="bulletin-quote">
   *S1M-1750.1 Roseanna Cunningham: Freedom of InformationâAs an amendment to motion (S1M-1750) in the name of Mr Jim Wallace, insert at end "but nevertheless regrets: (i) the proposed high and potentially prohibitive cost of applications; (ii) the extent and nature of the exemptions, in particular the exemptions afforded to the Crown Office, and (iii) that independent decisions by the Information Commissioner may be vetoed by the First Minister, and further expresses its concern that the passing of a Freedom of Information Bill in the terms proposed by the Executive would make little difference to the culture of secrecy which continues to pervade the governance of Scotland." Supported by: Michael Matheson*, Bruce Crawford*, Colin Campbell* 
  </p><p>You can <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?s=&phrase=S1M-1750.1&exclude=&from=2001-03-15&to=2001-03-15">search for this motion (S1M-1750.1) on TheyWorkForYou</a></p><p><b>Text Introducing Division:</b></p><p><p>The first question is, that amendment S1M-1750.1, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, which seeks to amend motion S1M-1750, in the name of Mr Jim Wallace, on freedom of information, be agreed to. Are we agreed?</p>
  
  <p> No.</p>
  
  <p> There will be a division.</p></p>