division_name: [S3M-3726.2 (Amendment)] Decision Time
motion: <p>This looks like the vote on S3M-3726.2</p><p>The description in the <a href="http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/businessBulletin/bb-09/bb-03-19f.htm">bulletin on 2009-03-19</a> is:</p><p class="bulletin-quote">
  *S3M-3726.2 Robert Brown: Police NumbersâAs an amendment to motion (S3M-3726) in the name of Richard Baker, insert at end "; notes the Police Force Projection Study carried out by the Scottish Government estimating that police officer numbers are likely to be between 17,275 and 17,484 by 31 March 2011; notes that the SNPâs attempt to alter its commitment to the delivery of the equivalent of 1,000 officers would not have achieved this result; welcomes the fact that the Scottish Government was forced by opposition parties and public opinion to firm up its commitment; regrets the Scottish Governmentâs repeated efforts to confuse and obfuscate the figures, noting that, as recently as 3 March 2009, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice cast further doubt on the Scottish Governmentâs intention and ability to achieve the target, and calls on the Scottish Government to work with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland to retain skills and expertise in the police force through appropriate workforce planning and ensure that police officers are working effectively and visibly in Scotlandâs local communities." Supported by: Mike Pringle* 
  </p><p>You can <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?s=&phrase=S3M-3726.2&exclude=&from=2009-03-19&to=2009-03-19">search for this motion (S3M-3726.2) on TheyWorkForYou</a></p><p><b>Text Introducing Division:</b></p><p><p>The seventh question is, that amendment S3M-3726.2, in the name of Robert Brown, which also seeks to amend motion S3M-3726, in the name of Richard Baker, on police numbers, be agreed to. Are we agreed?</p>
  
  <p> No.</p>
  
  <p>There will be a division.</p></p>