Scottish Parliament, 16 December 1999

523 contributions from 88 members. The official report.

Introduction

David (None, Lothians)

Before we begin the business of the morning, I want to inform members that I have agreed that there will be a ministerial statement on Hampden Park from Mr Sam Galbraith at 12.15 pm today. As usual, the statement will be followed by questions.

The first item of business is motion S1M-117, in the name of Michael Russell, on the Act of Settlement and an amendment to that motion.

Motion without notice

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Presiding Officer, I have given you notice that I would like to move a motion without notice, in my name, about the agricultural business improvement scheme. I submitted the motion to you this morning and I want to address the issue of whether it should be taken.

David (None, Lothians)

Under the standing orders, the decision whether to take such a motion is entirely mine. As the Rural Affairs Committee has reported this morning on ABIS, as the scheme ends on 31 December and as the application is supported by more than one party, I have decided that I should accept the motion. My decision allows the Parliament to decide whether to debate the issue. The motion that I am accepting is simply the motion without notice that an extra debate be added to this morning's business.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I appreciate your explanation, but it would be useful to stress to the chamber again the interpretation and ruling that you have just given.

I understand that the motion that has been referred to is a motion without notice to debate an issue and that the debate that we will now have will be on whether we should discuss the issue, not on the substantive details of the issue.

David (None, Lothians)

That is a clearer and longer version of what I just said.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am grateful to Mr McCabe for clarifying the matter. It is important that we know what we are voting on.

I apologise for croaking, but I am croaking rather less than I was yesterday. This will be a long morning, so I will be brief.

Two issues are at stake—one is the issue of principle and the other is the issue of practice. The issue of principle is that this morning's time in the Parliament is Opposition time, which has been allocated to the Scottish National party. Yesterday, we chose to bring forward an urgent motion that was lodged on Monday, which seeks to redress an injustice that is being done to some 4,000 people and which involves £22 million. It is a matter of real hardship in many sectors of the agriculture community in Scotland.

With the report from the Rural Affairs Committee strongly recommending that action be taken on ABIS, it seemed only fair to give Parliament the opportunity to have its voice heard, particularly as the cut-off date for the scheme—

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

On a point of order. I am a little confused. Mr Russell seems to be implying that he had knowledge of the report of the Rural Affairs Committee before it was published this morning at 7.30. My point of order is that yesterday, he said—

David (None, Lothians)

It was well known yesterday that the report would be published first thing this morning. The committee convener supplied me with a draft of the report and I trust that the report is now in the hands of every member.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

At the risk of incurring your wrath, Presiding Officer, I want to inform you that that was not the point of order. The point of order was connected to the fact that Mr Russell referred to items in the report in laying the motion without notice before the Parliament. That is a relevant point of order.

David (None, Lothians)

Please continue, Mr Russell.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Thank you very much.

Obviously, Mr Smith's long train journeys from Fife, to which he referred yesterday, are preying on his mind. The report, which is in the hands of everyone in the chamber, clearly indicates that an injustice is being done. In those circumstances, it is right that we consider the motion. If members had listened to the evidence in the committee, it would be surprising if they did not know that an injustice was being done, even before the report came out. Perhaps Mr Smith should read the evidence more often.

There is a wrong to be righted and this is the last opportunity to do so. It would be a huge failure of the Parliament if it did not take that opportunity and I am glad that the SNP is offering that opportunity. A decision on the matter involves all of us, particularly Liberal Democrat members, who should recall that at Westminster—and I am not fond of many Westminster conventions—there is a convention that the vote must follow the voice. We have heard many voices raised by the Liberal Democrats against the injustice of ABIS. I hope that they will bear that in mind when they decide whether to vote for the motion.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

This is sheer opportunism.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Obviously, the Deputy First Minister's vote will not follow his voice—that is a matter for his conscience.

The second point that I wish to raise this morning— [Interruption.]

David (None, Lothians)

Order. There is too much noise in the chamber.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Deputy First Minister is unusually animated this morning.

The second matter of great importance for the chamber is that this morning is SNP Opposition time. If we choose to bring a motion for debate, it should not be subject to veto by the Executive. There is a basic principle about allocation of parliamentary time, which I have addressed repeatedly in the Procedures Committee. In the circumstances, it would be wrong for the Parliament and any member on those benches to vote not to allow the SNP to use its time in the way that it wishes. If the Parliament were to do that, it would be a great blow to democracy here.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

On a point of order.

David (None, Lothians)

Is it a real point of order, Mr Jenkins?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is a killer point.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Mr Russell makes a point about abuse of the parliamentary system. The motion in Mr Russell's name—which I signed—was e-mailed to me, and I was told that it would not be debated. If anybody is abusing the parliamentary system, it is Mr Russell— [Interruption.]

David (None, Lothians)

Order. I will allow a short debate on this, until 9.45 am. If members wish to make points, they may do so, but there should be no points of order, please.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We have heard another Liberal Democrat whose vote will not follow his voice. I regret that, because this is an issue of parliamentary privilege; it is an issue about how the Parliament operates—whether the Executive dominates it or parties have a shot at things. If members vote against the motion, they are not only condemning 4,000 people to considerable financial hardship—remember that—but voting against Scottish democracy. I ask members to bear that in mind when they vote this morning.

I move,

That motion S1M-392 be taken at this meeting of the Parliament.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I would like to support Mr Russell's desire to have the issue heard in the Parliament. I was part of the Rural Affairs Committee, which heard evidence from all sides of the debate. The committee felt sympathy towards the Minister for Rural Affairs because it became obvious, through the process of gathering evidence, that he had been handed a poisoned chalice by his predecessor, Lord Sewel. One of the principles at stake is the extent to which the actions of the present Administration should be led by the promises of the previous one.

What is more important is that there was all-party agreement in the committee about the fact that many applicants have spent considerable sums of money applying for the scheme. They are, under the present circumstances, very unlikely to get that money back. It is essential, for the sake of democracy and principle, that the matter be debated in this chamber.

David (None, Lothians)

Mr McCabe's name has come up on the screen. Would he prefer to wind up at the end?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Yes.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am a member of the Rural Affairs Committee, involved in the questioning of the minister on 3 December.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

rose—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am shocked at the behaviour of the convener of the Rural Affairs Committee in rushing out this interim report in the early hours of the morning. I have not had the opportunity to read fully the interim report because of an earlier clash of committees. This is a disgraceful use of parliamentary time. This is using the financial problems of our farmers and crofters in the Highlands and Islands to make party political points. I suggest that we do not discuss the motion today.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Once again, we have seen the coalition between the Scottish National party and the Conservative party. I hope that the Conservative party will take the time— [Interruption.]

David (None, Lothians)

Order.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

On a point of order. Is not it the case that we were all elected to represent the interests of all the people of Scotland, irrespective of political party?

David (None, Lothians)

That is a truism, but not a point of order.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

That is true. I hope that the Conservative party— [Interruption.]

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

On a point of order.

David (None, Lothians)

Just a moment, Mr McCabe. Is this a real point of order?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Mr Rumbles would not allow me to intervene. Could I continue?

David (None, Lothians)

No, you cannot. That is not a point of order. Please sit down, Mr Ewing.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will finish the point that I was trying to make. I hope that when the Conservative party wraps itself in a union flag, it will remind the people who voted for it that it has spent so much time supporting the nationalists in the Parliament. On second thoughts, the Conservative members can save their time—we will do that for them.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

On a point of order.

David (None, Lothians)

Is this a first—a real point of order?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

As far as I am concerned, it is. I have heard Mr McCabe say that this is an issue for party co-ordination and co-operation. He is wrong. This is an issue— [Interruption.]

David (None, Lothians)

Order. That is not a point of order, Mr Gallie.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Mr Gallie misunderstands my point. This is another issue on which the Conservatives and the SNP agree.

This is not an attempt by the Executive to veto the democratic rights of the Parliament—the people who are abusing parliamentary process are SNP members. We have a business motion that has been accepted by the Parliament and agreed by every party in the Parliamentary Bureau, yet, even though the SNP had the opportunity to amend the motion, it has used the guise of short notice to gain political advantage. I am glad to hear—

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

The minister is wasting our time.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I am glad that Mr Russell appreciates my clarification—we will try to enlighten the SNP at every possible opportunity. Perhaps we could enlighten SNP members further—I refer to their behaviour this morning. I implore you, Presiding Officer, to pay more attention to the heckling and disgraceful behaviour that happens regularly.

The SNP had an opportunity to alter Parliament's business. The issue could have been dealt with and the scheme discussed today, if members had had sufficient notice to prepare for the debate. The fact that Mr Ewing had a motion in the business bulletin as early as Monday would have provided the SNP with sufficient time to make the necessary representations in the bureau and thus alter the business that was planned for today. It is a discourtesy to members to expect them to participate in a debate for which no prior notice was given.

To replace Mr Ewing's motion, lodged on Monday, with another lodged by Mr Russell, and to expect it to be debated today, is an abuse of parliamentary time and its procedures.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

As we are talking about abuse of parliamentary procedure, why does the 12.15 pm statement on Hampden not appear on the business bulletin, when the minister has been spinning since Sunday that he would make a statement today?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Is the Scottish National party suggesting that we should not have a statement on Hampden? It has been requesting such a statement for some time.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

rose—

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

rose—

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

The kind of behaviour that we have seen from the SNP brings this chamber into disrepute. It is also of concern that such behaviour is coming from a member of the Procedures Committee. I hope that that committee will examine the tactics that have been used by the SNP to disrupt today's business plan, for which members have been preparing for some time.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

On a point of order.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

It is not the Parliament's fault that the SNP is unable to organise its own business plans to avoid the need for disruption to this Parliament.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

On a point of order.

David (None, Lothians)

I hope that this is a real point of order, because I am getting tired of false ones.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

On a point of order. If the Procedures Committee is going to follow Mr McCabe's recommendation, I hope that it will also look at—

David (None, Lothians)

That is not a point of order.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

It is a point of order—

David (None, Lothians)

It is not a point of order; it is a point of argument. Carry on, Mr McCabe.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

This is not a new issue. It has been widely known that ABIS would end on 31 December. The Rural Affairs Committee has considered the matter over a number of weeks and if there had been a need for debate before the end of the year it would, no doubt, have brought something forward before yesterday.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I thank Mr McCabe for giving way. Is he aware that a member of the Labour party supports the motion? Rhoda Grant, during a meeting of the Rural Affairs Committee, said to Ross Finnie:

"I am suggesting that you could ask the Treasury to underwrite this scheme."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs Committee, 3 December 1999; c 278.]

I sincerely hope that Ms Grant will support this motion today as she did on 3 December.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

That is just another distortion from the SNP. No one is saying that there is no support for the principle of ABIS.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

So debate it.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Debate it.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

We are saying that the way in which the motion has been brought before this Parliament is wrong and shows discourtesy to the Parliament.

The report from the Rural Affairs Committee has been published only today. It has taken the committee nearly two weeks to compile it; equally, the Executive needs time to consider it and make a response.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I am more than happy to give way—it is the member's time.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the member agree that Mike Rumbles should withdraw his attack on the Rural Affairs Committee, given that he was not at the meeting at which it was decided to publish the report?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I am sure that the SNP would like Mr Rumbles to withdraw his relevant comments, but I am sure he will not oblige.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I was not at the Rural Affairs Committee meeting because I was convening the Standards Committee at the same time. The Standards Committee cannot meet without the convener.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

As I understand it, the report that we are discussing this morning is an interim report. The Rural Affairs Committee requires to make further investigations before it reaches a final view. Surely that will not happen before 31 December. Matters of concern have already been discussed in the Rural Affairs Committee, and the minister has already spoken to the committee. No new issues have been raised since then. ABIS has also been addressed in written and oral parliamentary questions. The scheme will result in some £16 million of Executive grants going to Highlands and Islands farmers. In an ideal world, of course, there would be more money, but it is equally true that £16 million is not an inconsiderable sum.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

It would be wrong to debate the issue so soon after the production of an interim report. I oppose Mike Russell's motion.

David (None, Lothians)

We must come to an immediate decision.

The question is, that the motion in the name of Mike Russell, that motion S1M-392 be taken at this meeting of the Parliament, be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 52, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Motion disagreed to.

Act of Settlement

David (None, Lothians)

We proceed to this morning's business, which is a debate on motion S1M-117, in the name of Michael Russell, on the Act of Settlement. I call Mike Russell to open the debate.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Perhaps we should pause for a moment to allow the smoke of battle to clear, because this morning we are considering an issue that is not only significant, but historic. It is important that we apply our minds to that rather than to the difficulties of the past 15 minutes.

First, I thank the 77 MSPs who signed the motion that I lodged on 1 September. Given the convention that ministers, Presiding Officers and Deputy Presiding Officers do not sign motions, 77—70 per cent of MSPs who were able to sign the motion—is a substantial number.

If Ian Jenkins's criticism is the worst that can be made of me this morning—that I have brought to debate in this chamber a motion that was not for debate—that is fair enough. I plead guilty. The reality is that I lodged the motion on 1 September with the support of five other MSPs because I felt that, if the Parliament's expression and will could be given on the business bulletin, over a period of time there might be some change south of the border that might move the issue on. That has not happened, which is why we are debating the issue today. We have had rumour and counter-rumour, spin and counter-spin. We have heard allegations that the First Minister was in favour of change pre-Rafferty, but against change post-Rafferty. We have heard a variety of rumours. However, what we have not had is any commitment to action.

I hope that we will debate the issue constructively and respectfully to say that this is a blot on Scotland which requires to be changed and that, by letting its voice be heard, the Parliament can be instrumental in such change.

Let us consider what the Act of Settlement 1701 and the following Act of Union 1707 actually are. They are extremely offensive pieces of legislation that stipulate that those who "profess the popish religion" can neither be monarchs nor marry into the royal family. Although the issue of who is or is not the monarch is not something that keeps me awake at night, I am concerned when any individual is told that the profession of his or her religion disbars him or her from anything. Most of us thought that such times were over in Scotland; many people are surprised to find that such times are still here.

As the Church of Scotland said yesterday, the Act of Settlement is a product of its times, as is the Act of Union. When those acts were passed—somewhat narrowly in the case of the Act of Union—the killing times were still within living memory. Profession of the Protestant religion had been injurious to health and even to life. Within living memory, a monarch had been removed from the throne for the profession of a very aggressive form of Catholicism which was felt to threaten the nation's unity. In such circumstances, it is scarcely surprising that such provisions were made. However, that was then, not now. We should not carry the prejudices of the past down to this and future generations; if we are to carry them down, we need a good reason for doing so.

What has surprised me in the debate over the past three and a half months—and indeed in the debate over the past 20 to 30 years—is that there are no good reasons for failing to change these offensive provisions. I had hoped that the reasons would at last be given when I read this morning's The Scotsman, which outlines the formidable constitutional obstacles that Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld came up against when he attempted to introduce a 10-minute rule bill on the matter in 1981.

The obstacles included the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Union with Scotland Act 1706, which is indeed a formidable obstacle, but not in this context, and Princess Sophia's Precedence Act 1711—I suspect that even the First Minister could not tell us what that is about. They included the Royal Marriage Act 1772, article 2 of the Union with Ireland Act 1800—Lord Hogg is obviously unaware that that is not particularly relevant any longer—section 4 and the schedule to the Regency Act 1937 and the Statute of Westminster 1931.

None of us here could tell anyone what those laws are about, but what they should not be about is institutionalising discrimination. If any of them are, they should also be changed. Far from those laws being a reason for inaction, they are a spur to further action. That is what we should try to achieve in the chamber today.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Can Mr Russell tell us why he wants to raise this issue now, when all the time there have been Scottish National party members in the Palace of Westminster, none of them has tried to raise it?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sorry that Mr McMahon is not better informed. There is a motion and our members have raised the issue. Mr Salmond has raised the issue and spoken to it on a number of occasions.

Even if Michael McMahon were right, his intervention would not be in the spirit of today's debate, in which we are trying to change something that needs to be changed. With respect to Michael McMahon—I know that he supports the change—the best way to get change is for people in this chamber to agree that it is needed, rather than for them to make political points, which will get us no further. The act will remain unchanged if the matter is seen as party political.

I am sorry that Mr McMahon is waving his hands in a rather odd fashion. There is not a shred of political advantage in this issue for any party in the chamber. There is an advantage for the people of Scotland, however, if, today of all days, the Parliament comes together to say that the act is wrong. There need be no wild words or statements, but together we should add our voice to the voices of the Church of Scotland, the Catholic Church, the Baptist union, the Hindu community, the Muslim community, distinguished historian Tom Devine and James MacMillan, who from the reporters' gallery conducted a fanfare for the opening of this Parliament on 1 July. If the Parliament adds its voice to those voices, we will do the Parliament credit. If, however, we comb through the minutiae of history to find a reason not to change things, they will not change.

I want to hear one simple thing from Mr McCabe: that there is an intention to move forward. The amendment says simply that this is a terribly difficult matter and that it is somebody else's problem. We should remember Burke's words:

"It is necessary only for the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph."

I am sorry that the First Minister laughs at that, that he does not regard institutionalised discrimination of any description as unacceptable and that he does not want to join us in moving forward.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Will the member give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

In a moment.

Yesterday, Mr McAveety raised the issue with me in the tea room. He made a joke about me standing up for the poor Catholics of Glasgow, as if in some way it was a patronising action. I do not particularly want Mr McAveety to marry a monarch—the idea is pretty frightening—but I do want a society in which we can all say that there is no law that prevents anybody from doing anything because of religious discrimination.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Mr Russell said that he hopes the amendment is not simply an attempt to put responsibility on to somebody else, yet in the e-mail he sent on 16 August, he said:

"The Parliament itself cannot change the Act of Settlement . . . This is not a challenge to Westminster".

David (None, Lothians)

Before you respond to that, Mr Russell, I should say, in view of what you said a moment ago, that it is not good practice to quote private conversations in the Parliament.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I apologise. Mr McAveety and I have a number of private conversations. I will not—

David (None, Lothians)

I have no doubt, but we do not all want to hear about them.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will not quote any of them again, Presiding Officer.

I should say to Mr Henry that the motion is not a challenge to anybody. The argument that I put out arose because of representations made to me from the Labour benches—that this would be a challenge to Westminster. This is a challenge to decency in Scotland, not to Westminster.

I acknowledge that Mr McCabe's amendment states the facts as they presently are and not as I would like to see them. I hope that, in those circumstances, the chamber would like to hear some positive intention from Mr McCabe. I hope that members can then move forward together.

I do not support the constitutional settlement as it is at present. I hope that we will move on to a written constitution and a bill of rights. They would make this debate completely irrelevant. In such circumstances, it would be impossible to have discriminatory legislation.

I regret that one of the excuses that has been given for inaction is that there would require to be change in 15 Commonwealth countries. Members will know from the material that we have been releasing over the past few days that that is not true. Any country with a written constitution and a bill of rights will automatically override the Act of Settlement. With a written constitution and a bill of rights, we could transfer the matter to the history books. We can do that today if the Parliament unites to say that we are in a process of change and of making Scotland a better country to live in. In those circumstances, we are in the process of removing any offence towards our fellow citizens.

I hope that the tone of this debate will be one in which we can make those points. If we do not have a debate of that tone, the matter will not go away. We can take the matter away today. United, we can say that discrimination is wrong. Let us end it. That would be a suitable Christmas and millennium gift from this Parliament to the people of Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the discrimination contained in the Act of Settlement has no place in our modern society, expresses its wish that those discriminatory aspects of the Act be repealed, and affirms its view that Scottish society must not disbar participation in any aspect of our national life on the grounds of religion.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I, too, think that this is a very important debate. The tone in which it is conducted is critical to the standing of the Parliament. It is disappointing that Mike Russell has set the tone by quoting a private conversation. Furthermore, he is condemned by his own words.

Hugh Henry was right to point out that when people were encouraged to sign the motion, it was against the background of some important statements made by Mike Russell. He acknowledged that this Parliament cannot change the act. He said that the motion was not a challenge to Westminster. Yet as soon as he rises to his feet, he asks for a statement about when this Parliament will move forward—although it has no power to change the act. That is unfortunate in relation to setting the proper tone for a debate as serious as this.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I think that Mr McCabe misunderstands—I am sure unwittingly—what Mike Russell is saying. We are not asking for a repetition of the fact that we do not have the power to change the act. We accept that. It is not something that we like, but we accept it as a fact. What we are asking for is an indication of intent from Mr McCabe in his position as a Labour party minister and an indication that the Labour party in government in Westminster intends to progress on this issue.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I greatly appreciate the elevation, but I point out to Mr Salmond that I am a minister in the Parliament of Scotland, not of Westminster.

There is no doubt that we are dealing with a sensitive and important subject, but it is also beyond question that it is outwith the legislative competence of this Parliament. That does not mean that we cannot discuss it, within the rules of order and competence. The coalition Administration will defend this Parliament's right to choose its own subjects for discussion.

With all rights come responsibilities. In this chamber, matters that are within Westminster's powers should be approached with caution. Expressing an opinion is of course a valid exercise, but it can often raise expectations that we are not in a position to satisfy.

The motion discusses discrimination. I am in no doubt that this Parliament will want to combat discrimination wherever it is found. Indeed, we want to replace it with a Scotland characterised by fairness and justice for all its citizens, whatever their background, faith or race.

The amendment recognises the complex constitutional difficulties that change or repeal of the act raises. It also acknowledges the fact that it is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament. When we express the wish to repeal the discriminatory aspects of the act, we have to examine the constitutional and parliamentary time implications that that would have for the Westminster Parliament. Any Administration has to take tough decisions on its competing priorities when considering how best it can address discrimination.

The harsh reality is that we live in an unequal society. In this Parliament, we have embarked on a crusade against poverty. Thousands of Scots battle against the odds every day. They need to know that this Parliament is on their side. It is a fight we will not give up. We will dedicate ourselves to winning it, no matter how long it takes. It has been said that Roman Catholics and indeed Scots of other faiths are insulted by the Act of Settlement. Of course they are, but by allowing people to meet their full potential, by removing the insult of poverty, exclusion and deprivation we also allow them to repudiate that insult.

The fact that the act is a message from the past does not excuse or justify the situation. Nor does the fact that it has been an issue for many years in any way make it acceptable. People support politicians who know the value and priority of giving every child the best possible start in life. Scots know the value and priority of concentrating on quality education, decent housing and a safe environment. Those must be basic expectations for all Scots, not just the privileged few or a particular race, sex, religion or class.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Everyone in the Parliament is opposed to discrimination in any form. I want to ask Mr McCabe about the role of the joint committees that have been much trumpeted by Gordon Brown. Would it be helpful to joint committee members from this Parliament to have the vote of the Parliament on ending this aspect of discrimination to back them up? At least it would mark a staging point on the route to eliminating this discriminatory legislation.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

The Westminster Parliament will know of this debate and be well aware of the opinions expressed in it and the vote on it. The Administration at Westminster, like the coalition Administration here, has a proud record in opposing discrimination. We hope that, in the years to come, the Opposition parties in this chamber will share that record of opposing discrimination.

We are focusing the work of this Parliament on the scourge of domestic violence. We are focusing our work on ending child poverty. We want this Parliament to commit money to the areas of greatest need. We hope that the whole Parliament is determined to continue that work through the unprecedented powers that we now have. We should pursue an end to discrimination with vigour but we should do it in a way that will not deny social progress across the country. In moving the amendment we condemn discrimination and acknowledge it has no place in a multifaith, multicultural society.

Being concerned about the Act of Settlement should not preclude a desire to tackle distortions of modern society that destroy life chances and deprive so many of our citizens of the right to develop their full potential. The two are not mutually exclusive. However, I am a little surprised by the decision to use Opposition time to debate a 300-year-old law. This afternoon, we will debate the challenges that face the health service in Scotland. Already this week there has been an expression of concern about the French ban on British beef. There are many other issues that the Scottish people might think more pressing for an opposition party debate.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Does the minister recall that the Conservative party had occasion to make that very point to the Executive, when it happened that approximately 38 minutes were devoted to a debate on homelessness, followed the next day by a debate of three hours on the millennium bug? I am pleased that the Executive acknowledged that problem and accorded more time for the subsequent debate on social justice.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I am happy to acknowledge that. I hope that the member acknowledges that the Parliamentary Bureau, on which her party is represented, agreed to that business timetable.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the minister accept that, only yesterday, the chamber debated, on an Executive motion, laws that are several hundred years old?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

The subject of yesterday's debate was within our competence; the subject of today's debate is not.

We accept that politicians have the right to set their own priorities. I note in passing that, during the past 18 years, the only attempts—to our knowledge—to amend the Act of Settlement in the UK Parliament were made under the 10-minute rule. As far as we can determine, those attempts were promoted by Norman Hogg, the former Labour MP for Cumbernauld and John Home-Robertson, who is now a Labour MSP. I was therefore a little surprised that no explanation was offered, even on a point of intervention, by Mike Russell on behalf of the leader of his party, Mr Salmond, who has had 13 years in Westminster to raise this issue, including many opportunities presented by the Scottish Grand Committee. If it is any consolation, someone with a questioning mind might wonder why Lord Forsyth has to raise the issue now in the House of Lords.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the minister give way?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

No, not at the moment.

At no time did Lord Forsyth attempt to raise this issue, either as Secretary of State for Scotland or, previously, as Minister of State at the Home Office, which is the UK department with responsibility for constitutional affairs. I hope that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, who has a proud record of endurance at the Scottish Office, will be able to throw some light on the matter.

There is clearly consensus in this Parliament on the discriminatory aspects of the Act of Settlement, a change to which would have to be ratified by 15 Commonwealth Parliaments and would require amendments to at least eight separate acts. Mr Russell referred to another view, but I note that the letter he received from the Canadian Parliament ended with the words, "it would appear"—a useful phrase that is often used by lawyers. I have no doubt that in Canada the result would be protracted argument and that Canadian law officers may take a different view on the opinion expressed in that letter.

I repeat that amending the Act of Settlement would require amendments to at least eight acts of Parliament. It is worth remembering that that is the same number of acts that the Executive proposes to pass through this Parliament in a full year.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Is it not the case that, to pass the Scotland Bill, the number of acts of Parliament that required amendment far exceeded eight? Does the minister agree that amending that multitude of acts to establish this Parliament was a worthwhile exercise?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

That leads to an interesting question. Would Mr Neil have preferred that Westminster had spent a year on the Act of Settlement rather than establishing this Parliament?

I am in the privileged position of representing the town and streets in which I was raised. It is a good place with good people—proud people who try hard and work harder. Those good people are still there, but they know that the place has changed. Even though Scotland has the lowest unemployment count for 23 years, there remain many jobless households, problems of social deprivation and the devastation of drugs. Our first, and probably overwhelming, priority should be to give people the opportunity of work that is worth while, freedom to move safely through their communities and the chance to see their children growing up to maturity, facing the future with confidence.

I believe that all members recognise those as the overwhelming priorities for every community in Scotland and for every person whatever his or her religious or economic background. I hope that we can avoid the politics of gesture in this debate. We are drawing attention to a problem that offends many; I do not want to belittle that fact in any way or write it down. There are aspects of the Act of Settlement that echo from the distant past and stand uneasily with our modern and more enlightened values.

I move the amendment to underline the determination of this coalition Administration to tackle discrimination in all its forms, priority by priority. All members will agree on the importance of today's debate. We should also recognise the grinding realities of discrimination—economic and social—that are still to be banished from many communities throughout Scotland.

I move amendment S1M-117.1, to insert at end:

"recognises that amendment or repeal raises complex constitutional issues, and that this is a matter reserved to UK Parliament."

David (None, Lothians)

I propose that speeches in the open debate be limited to five minutes. That does not mean that all members must take five minutes; that is the maximum that is allowed.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Mr Mike Russell is to be warmly congratulated for lodging this motion, which has given the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to consider this matter and the principles that are involved. Perhaps I should begin by answering Mr Tom McCabe's question about why this issue has not arisen before.

I do not recollect the issue coming up before this year, and I believe that it has been placed on the agenda for two reasons. First, wholesale constitutional reform has meant that the entire constitution has come under the microscope. Secondly, the legislation is clearly inconsistent with the social inclusion that will be associated with the millennium. Those two factors, taken together, in my view caused this issue to be raised.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Was there anything that precluded the Conservative party from making progress on any of those issues, or on this specific issue, during its term in office?

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Over the past 300 years, nothing has precluded any party—including the Labour party, when it was in government—from addressing this issue. I do not recollect its coming before me during the 10 years I was in the Government. It has arisen this year as a result of wholesale constitutional reform and the approaching millennium.

The important issue is whether there should be legislation that blatantly discriminates against a Christian religion. The subject is particularly relevant as we live in a multifaith community. In the context of the millennium, it is intended to recognise and appreciate the contribution of all faiths and communities in our country. The heir to the throne can accede if he marries a Muslim, a Buddhist, a scientologist, a Moonie, an atheist or a sun-worshipper, but not if he marries a Roman Catholic. Leaving such a stigma in place when no other religion or faith is singled out is grossly unfair.

When Mr Mike Russell lodged his motion, I wrote to the Prime Minister, whose response offered no defence or justification for the present legislation. He had "no plans" to do anything about the situation and said—as the amendment says—that reforming the law would be complex. That is absolutely right. Similarly, it was complex to reform the House of Lords, but that did not prove an insurmountable problem. The complexity can be exaggerated. I recommend the acceptance of Mr Tom McCabe's amendment in view of the positive remarks that he associated with it.

It occurred to me that it would be helpful to have a consultation exercise that involved all the faiths and Churches in Scotland. The responses, which are in the parliamentary information centre and the chamber office, indicate widespread consensus against this kind of religious discrimination. Out of nine responses, eight were clearly opposed to discrimination and the ninth was conscious of the complexity of the matter. Cardinal Winning made the valid point that

"Royal Commissions are normally established to tackle some thorny issue on which there is no wide consensus. The campaign to end the Act of Settlement commands broad public and political support. Indeed, I can think of no major public figure prepared to defend the language of intolerance contained in the offensive clauses. What is now needed is a clear signal that this issue will be tackled, and tackled soon."

I cannot but feel the force of that argument.

My own Church, the Church of Scotland, stated in a letter:

"It is the view of the Legal Questions Committee that the discriminatory provisions of the Act of Settlement have no place in our contemporary society. The Act was a product of its times and those times are not our times. Thankfully, we live in a climate of ecumenical friendship and cooperation unknown at the beginning of the 18th century."

In his letter, the cardinal put the case even more strongly. He wrote:

"It has been said that the Act of Settlement does not impinge on the daily lives of Catholics, and that is true."

That view has been echoed by Tom McCabe. However, the cardinal continued:

"Nevertheless its continued presence on the statute books is an offensive reminder to the whole Catholic community of a mentality which has no place in modern Britain."

His message to the Parliament can be summed up in one sentence:

"I wish all of you success in rooting out an offensive, embarrassing and anachronistic blot on our escutcheon."

I must report that the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church have the support of the Hindu and Muslim faiths in that view. A letter from the Hindu Mandir states:

"Kindly note our view is that we as Hindus do not discriminate against anyone."

Mr Bashir Mann of the Muslim community wrote:

"The Muslim Religion is against all kinds of discrimination on account of race colour or creed. We would therefore support an amendment to the Act, that would remove this flagrant statutory discrimination against the Roman Catholic faith."

As it happens, Mr Bashir Mann is a Labour councillor. I mention that because this should not be a party political matter. When the subject came up in the House of Lords recently, Lord St John of Fawsley, who opposed Michael Forsyth's address, said that

"such a major matter is best set in train—and should be set in train—by the Government and Opposition parties officially acting together".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 December 1999; Vol 607, c 918.]

I hope that that will happen.

This debate is a continuation of the debate in 1829 on the subject of Roman Catholic emancipation—enabling Roman Catholics to become members of Parliament. The Prime Minister at the time was the Duke of Wellington, who defeated Napoleon at Waterloo. He was on the side of emancipation. Lord Winchilsea attacked Wellington in language that was so offensive that it would not be tolerated today. He implied that Wellington was being disloyal to his country. The Prime Minister immediately challenged Winchilsea to a duel—the only time, as far as I can recall, that a Prime Minister has had to defend his honour in that way. On 21 March 1829, not long after first light, the Prime Minister and Winchilsea met on Battersea fields with their seconds. When the moment to shoot arrived, the Prime Minister took careful aim and fired wide. Winchilsea, not wishing to kill his Prime Minister, fired in the air. He then wrote a grovelling letter of apology.

A few days later, on 2 April, Wellington—in the face of the stiffest opposition in the House of Lords—spoke for Roman Catholic emancipation and made the best speech of his life. He said:

"I am one of those who have probably passed a longer period of my life engaged in war than most men, and principally in civil war; and I must say this, that if I could avoid by any sacrifice whatever even one month of civil war in the country to which I was attached, I would sacrifice my life in order to do it."

When the vote came, he obtained a majority of 105—almost two thirds in favour.

I hope that today our majority will be even more convincing. I hope that it will persuade the Prime Minister to put reform of the Act of Settlement firmly on the agenda. If the Duke of Wellington—who was, if I may say, even more right-wing than Mr Tony Blair, which is saying quite a lot—was prepared to take a stand on principle and bring in progressive reform, surely it is not too much to hope that our Prime Minister can show the same kind of moral courage.

The basic truth that was applicable in 1829 and remains so today is that a substantial proportion of our countrymen and countrywomen are of Roman Catholic origin. There are some 800,000 Scots of Roman Catholic origin, and they deserve better than to have outdated legislation, some 300 years old, in force discriminating against them. Only a few years ago, in 1974, there had to be legislation to confirm that a Roman Catholic could be Lord Chancellor.

The Act of Settlement and its corresponding Scottish provisions are, as the First Minister has described them, a "legacy from the past". However, as well as being a very unwelcome legacy from the past, it constitutes what Michael Forsyth called the British constitution's "grubby little secret". The Equal Opportunities Committee of this Parliament calls it an "anachronistic anomaly", and the cardinal has described it as an "insult to all Catholics". It is neither in keeping with the spirit of the times nor consistent with the social inclusion that we wish to celebrate in the year of the millennium.

Our vote today should serve as a signal that blatant and hurtful legislation discriminating against a Christian religion is not acceptable, just as discrimination against a race or ethnic community is not acceptable. Today we have the opportunity to give an example to Britain, by recommending that such discrimination is an offensive anachronism that should be swept away. I commend the motion to the Parliament.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I am very happy to follow Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's excellent speech. He did not tell us about another famous duel of the same period, between Canning and Castlereagh, who were two leading members of the same Government. Nowadays we are not courageous enough to shoot at each other, so leading politicians use spin-doctors to stab each other in the back. I think that we should stop that practice.

This is not a party issue. I am not speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats and have no idea what the views of individual Liberal Democrats are. We need to evolve better ways of tackling subjects such as this. Although there is a strong all-party view on this, the fact that it has been pushed by a leading member of the SNP has made it a sort of party issue. I am sure that that was not intended, but that is how the matter has been interpreted. The previous debate today showed that we have got things seriously wrong. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, we must conduct our affairs better. Parliament has to take control. There should be opportunities for parliamentary, rather than party, motions.

However, I am very happy to support this motion. If we can get away from pots and kettles calling each other black, we will get on better. Also, we should not rehearse history, as it is very dangerous to do so. For example, at different times the Labour party and the SNP have been virulently against the European Union. Although they have changed, it would be a waste of time to cast that in their teeth. People change. The most effective apostle was St Paul—he changed. It is pathetic to argue on the basis that somebody had the chance to do something and did not take it. For God's sake, let us get away from that kind of argument.

I support the Executive amendment. I do not think that there is any necessity for the Executive to put forward an amendment, and I strongly contest the idea that the Executive has to have a view on everything—that is rubbish. However, this amendment is sensible and is not hostile to the motion. It had been rumoured that there was to be an amendment that was hostile to the motion.

The Executive deserves due credit for the fact that its amendment is constructive, as this is a complicated issue. It is much more complicated for the English. There are many very decent English people who take the matter of the head of the Church of England very seriously and for whom it is a big deal. I find it stupid that when the Queen's aeroplane crosses the Solway as she comes up to Balmoral or Holyrood, she has to remember that she is no longer the head of the Church of England, but is now a member of the Church of Scotland. She carries that off remarkably well, but it is a ludicrous position. One must always recognise other people's serious problems, and the English have a serious problem on this, which we have to address.

We have advanced in other respects. Personally, I find prayers at Westminster extremely abhorrent, as they are all about exclusiveness. They are always conducted by the same worthy Church of England gentleman, who prays in exactly the same terms. They hark back to the period when officers in the army had to be members of the Church of England and one could not get a university education in England unless one was a member of the Church of England. We have advanced a bit, but one still cannot be king or queen unless one is a member of the Church of England, and that is ridiculous. It may be only symbolic, and it may be fair to say that this Parliament cannot do anything about it. However, we can send a signal to people in our country that we are not discriminatory.

On the subject of symbols—because I know that people often read more into things than is really the case—I did not attend the Labour party's party because I was totally exhausted and was trying to fight off a bug. My absence bore no political content at all. I am happy to vote for sensible motions from any quarter and to eat and drink with people of any political party.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I am sure that the invitations will be coming in thick and fast now, Mr Gorrie.

I call Michael McMahon.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Let me make it clear from the outset that the Act of Settlement is an anachronistic anomaly that runs contrary to the principles of inclusion and equality. As a member of a party founded on the principles of social justice, I am pleased to say that I know of no member of this Parliament—from the Labour party or from any other party—who would argue against the view that the act has no place in a modern Scotland. However, the real question before us today is not whether members believe that to be the case, but whether a debate on the repeal of that age-old legislation should take precedence over the priorities of the Executive.

Wrong as it is, the act has little relevance to the lives of ordinary Catholics. I believe that to be the case because I have spoken to fellow Catholics—those whom I meet every day in my constituency, the parents whom I meet at my children's schools, my friends and fellow parishioners where I attend mass every Sunday.

We were elected to this Parliament in May to deliver on education, health, creating jobs, combating poverty and tackling crime. Labour is busy in both Parliaments—here in Edinburgh in coalition with the Liberal Democrats—pushing through bills that will have a positive impact on the lives of all our people, including the Catholic community. Labour has radically updated the British constitution, devolving power to this Parliament as promised, so let us dismiss the argument that Labour is slow on constitutional reform. That is a weak contention that holds no water.

It is true that Labour did not include proposals for a debate on the repeal of the Act of Settlement in its election manifestos for Westminster or for Scotland. Neither, however, did the nationalists, the Tories or our Liberal partners. The view was that the act had little relevance to the lives of ordinary Catholics, and I believe that that is still the case. I wonder, therefore, why there is now such urgency to debate that irrelevancy. Where did it come from and how genuine is it? I can only conclude that the nationalists, in deciding to hold this debate, believe that repeal of the Act of Settlement should come before the people's priorities.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

During my tenure of the SNP leadership, I have spoken about the Act of Settlement many times, and it has caused controversy many times. The matter was indeed included in the SNP's election document, "Citizens not Subjects", which I was proud to introduce during the election campaign.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I accept that point and apologise for being wrong.

As we saw during the previous debate on equality, the SNP members seem intent on spending their time complaining about what this Parliament cannot do, rather than showing what it can do. They believe that we should concentrate on outdated legislation affecting one privileged family, rather than delivering for all our families. They want the matter debated in the Scottish Parliament, not for the right reasons, but rather to divide our Parliament. Rather than debating the real issues that affect Scotland's people, they seek to use valuable time in the Scottish Parliament to debate an issue that is the preserve of another place.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will Mr McMahon give way?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I will not give way. I would like to make progress with my speech.

We must ask why we are debating this matter, when the Parliament had previously made its position clear. A majority of members, including myself, have already signed a motion condemning the Act of Settlement. The view of Parliament has been stated clearly. When I originally approached Mike Russell on this issue to seek out his motive in raising the subject, he promised that, if a simple majority of MSPs signed the motion, it would act as a statement of this Parliament. No debate, he said, would be required. In spite of Mr Russell's assurances that it was not his aim, his party's apparent desire to exploit any populist issue appears to supersede the need to preserve Mr Russell's integrity.

If members doubt that this matter comes down to politics, I refer them to an article in the Scottish Catholic Observer of Friday 3 December. The writer, clearly puzzled at the emergence of this subject as a political issue, turned to Dr Peter Lynch of the University of Stirling for an answer. He argued:

"This is a great wedge issue for the SNP . . . Either they lever the Scottish Catholic vote away from Labour or they push a wedge between Labour in England and Scotland."

Dr Lynch hit the nail on the head. I support the journalist's conclusion that it is because of politics that this

"Parliament is debating a matter over which it cannot legislate, while Catholics are being courted over an issue on which they mostly couldn't care less".

As the reporter on the Equal Opportunities Committee looking at this issue, I spoke to the Catholic Church. I agree with it when it said:

"we think this Act is silly and it should be changed, but we recognise that the Government has other legislative priorities at the moment."

As a Catholic, I concur when it states:

"we are not going to be manipulated by any one political party on this issue."

The Equal Opportunities Committee agreed that it was for our representatives at Westminster to decide what is more important. It is for them to decide whether the priority should be health, education, jobs and poverty, or amending some outdated piece of legislation to benefit a select few who are, or aspire to be, members of the royal family.

In putting forward its amendment, I am confident that the Executive seeks no party advantage. We are a coalition, and no single party in the partnership gains from the amendment, nor do any of the Opposition parties lose. All we seek is an honest debate on the real issues facing Scotland's Catholics. I have spoken to representatives of the Catholic Church, and believe that that is also its view.

I urge members to support the Executive's amendment.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I have been described as headmasterly, so I may as well behave like one and give my historian's address.

I am sure that when the Act of Union 1707 and the Act of Settlement came along, my family in Argyllshire embraced both with vigour, but my family was wrong. Times have changed. I do not embrace the Act of Union or the Act of Settlement. The latter was a child of its time, when the religion of the monarch almost invariably dictated the faith of the entire population. It was inextricably bound up with the theory of divine right, which created a direct line between God and the monarch, and the association of the monarch with a religious infrastructure that supported that divine right. In progressive nations, that theory waned with the onset of constitutional democracy or with the arrival of vigorously anti-clerical republics, where monarchs who did not adapt, such as the Romanovs, went down cataclysmically.

In their time, the Act of Settlement and similar expressions of exclusivity were the norm as the dominant faith in a nation attempted to maintain its position against the supposed menace of its religious minorities. It was perhaps justifiable to the people then, in times of institutionalised intolerance. At the end of the 20th century, when institutionalised and organised religion is less popular than it was, when an individual's right to chose their own faith or none is universally accepted in these islands, and when there are acts of Parliament that rightly demand equal opportunities and legislate against racism and sexism, the continued existence of the Act of Settlement can be seen as a last gasp from the past, or an eccentric blip. Eccentric blips can be harmless, but this one is not, because its terms disqualify one religious denomination from the throne of the United Kingdom and disqualify anyone with a claim to the throne who marries a Roman Catholic. Repeal of the act will not cause a rush of people marrying into the royal family, but this is a matter of principle.

I would like to quote Cardinal Winning, not because I always agree with him—apart from anything else, I am a Presbyterian—but because in Scotland on Sunday on 5 September he said of the Act of Settlement:

"it is, in short, something of an embarrassing anachronism for both the Royal Family and the British Parliament."

I do not think that anyone here would disagree with that, but it is not merely an embarrassing anachronism; it delivers a selective and negative message to one section of the population of Scotland and the United Kingdom—a message that is outmoded, biased and a relic of a bygone age.

This is the last debating day of the 20th century and of the millennium for our new Scottish Parliament. The Parliament is in Edinburgh. In the age of enlightenment in the 18th century, Edinburgh was the Athens of the north, to which people looked for intellectual stimulus and forward thinking. What we do here today will send a signal of our mutual enlightenment to the Roman Catholics of Scotland and will confirm our determination to eradicate institutionalised inequality.

Over 70 members have signed this motion. If every member votes for the motion, we will have joined in a consensual, modest but essential initiative, which will send the word from Scotland that institutionalised bigotry has no place in a modern nation. That is a good message to deliver on the eve of the millennium. I know, Tom McCabe, that there will be some administrative difficulties as this grinds its way inexorably through the system; however, I think that we would capture the mood of the Parliament, the mood of the people that we represent, and that we would give a lead to the UK Parliament and encourage it to follow our example.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Much of what has been said today is agreeable. Most members will have difficulty in finding issues on which there are fundamental differences. That is one of the reasons why some of the points are a wee bit contradictory.

It has rightly been stated that discussing and passing this motion is a gesture. However, I recall Glasgow City Council, and other city councils across England and Wales, proudly conferring the freedom of the city on Nelson Mandela while he was incarcerated in Robben Island. That was an important gesture because it sent the message of our abhorrence and hatred of apartheid to the rest of the world. This discussion today is a gesture, but an important one. It sends out the message that this type of institutionalised discrimination is unacceptable as we move into the 21st century.

I have no love for the royal family. Unfortunately, my amendment was not accepted. It would have given the democratic republicans among us the chance to vote for that today. I have no love for organised religion either. I am an irreconcilable atheist, but I respect the rights of those who wish to practise their own religion not to be discriminated against for taking that right to heart.

From that point of view, it is important that the Parliament deals with this issue today, I hope unanimously. I hope that Mike Russell will accept the amendment because it is an addition rather than a deletion. The crux of what was said by Mike Russell, and which got most members to sign the motion, is still there. That is important.

It is a bit disingenuous of some members to say that the reason that they signed the original e-mail communication, in relation to the motion that Mike Russell spoke about, was because it said that this would not be debated in Parliament and was not a challenge to Westminster. I hope that that is not sending out the message that "We signed it because we hoped that it would not be debated. We signed it because we hoped that it would not mean anything." I hope that members signed it because they supported its principle.

I hope that today we will finish this matter. I hope that we send a unanimous message from this Parliament to Westminster that it should change the Act of Settlement and that that will be a full stop. If this issue had not been brought before the Parliament today, it would have festered. It would have been raised in the Equal Opportunities Committee again, and would have led to the question of whether the Equal Opportunities Committee should have brought it to the Parliament. This debate means that the issue is finished with.

I agree that this matter is way down the scale of priority of what we have to deal with in Scotland—I do not think that any member would disagree with that—but that does not mean that it is not important to deal with it. I hope that we make a unanimous decision today to send this to Westminster and send a clear, unequivocal message that the Act of Settlement should be changed.

I hope that, in future, the precedent will be recognised that the Parliament must be allowed to discuss matters beyond, and will not be restricted to matters within, its legislative competence. I remember the Tories, in the dark days of the 1980s, trying to impose that particular restriction on local authorities throughout the country. I am glad to say that that did not work, nor will it work as far as the Parliament is concerned.

I look forward to us discussing the idea of abolishing the monarchy itself, and to us moving towards a socialist republic, which is democratic to its core and enshrines equality in a written constitution and bill of rights, and which is made up of genuine citizens, not of subjects.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I, too, am a wee bit surprised to be taking part in a full debate on this subject, although I signed the motion on the principle, about which there is no doubt. In signing the motion, I thought that Mike Russell's intention was to show the Parliament's feeling on this discriminatory act. The number of members, with differing religious beliefs, from all parties who signed the motion showed that any fair-minded person would like this anomaly to be removed from our law.

Nevertheless, we are debating an issue over which we have no power to legislate. I will not repeat Michael McMahon, who quoted from last week's Scottish Catholic Observer, in which that point was made. However, if the SNP chooses to use its parliamentary time for this purpose, it is clearly its right to do so. We can, of course, express an opinion; I am happy to express mine.

The Parliament was founded on the understanding that the principle of equality was at its heart. We have a powerful Equal Opportunities Committee and a responsibility for the promotion and encouragement of equal opportunities, within the Parliament and the Executive and across public authorities and bodies. The principle of equality should apply to all Scotland's people, in all areas of life. There can be no doubt that the Act of Settlement is discriminatory to Catholics—not only in Scotland, but throughout the UK and the Commonwealth—and is offensive to any reasonable person.

I well remember, as a young girl, being told that the monarch was not allowed to marry a Catholic. I grew up with that knowledge and wondered why I should have any fewer rights than other Christians, people of other religions, or any other citizen, because I am a Catholic. However, to be perfectly honest, I do not think that the Act of Settlement impinged greatly on my life or on my ability to make the most of my opportunities.

Nor do I believe that the act has great significance to the daily lives of my constituents in Coatbridge and Chryston. What affect their lives are issues such as poverty, drug use and abuse, anti-social neighbours, homelessness, lack of educational opportunities—the whole huge area of injustice that is social exclusion. They want the Parliament to deliver what it has the power to deliver: social justice for all.

As outlined in the Equal Opportunities Committee's statement, Monsignor Tom Connelly, the spokesperson for the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, recognised that the Government has other legislative priorities. There is no doubt that the sentiments expressed in Mike Russell's motion are right, but I hope that they are being expressed for the right reasons—raising awareness of, and tackling in due course, this unacceptable, discriminatory piece of legislation—and not out of political expediency. If the former is the case, I trust that members will be able to support the Executive's amendment, as I intend to do.

The Act of Settlement has been around for 300 years. The views of many members in the chamber have been clearly expressed and I am sure that the majority of people in our society will welcome that. The act should be repealed. None the less, that is clearly a matter for Westminster to progress within its legislative framework; it is not for us to dictate a timetable for that. I support the amendment.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It would be easy for the debate to become bogged down in the issue of whether the Parliament has the power to change the Act of Settlement, or whether the act is a burning issue among Catholics in Scotland. However, by seeking to have the debate, we seek to address the fundamental issue of discrimination.

I cannot agree with Michael McMahon that this is an irrelevancy to many Catholics. Many Catholics may be ambivalent about it, but that does not mean that they think that things should not change. We can always be selective in our use of quotations. Both he and Elaine Smith quoted Monsignor Tom Connelly, but the monsignor also stated, in the Daily Mail of 15 November, that he was very pleased that Scotland was taking the lead in this matter. The monsignor is not here to defend himself or to settle our differences, but we should bear in mind the fact that we can be selective in trying to give a set impression.

This debate allows us to deal with a fundamental issue of discrimination; it enables us to state clearly that discrimination is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in a modern Scotland.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Does Michael Matheson think that the Act of Settlement impinges greatly on the daily lives of the people in Scotland?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

This is not about whether the act impinges on people directly or indirectly; it is about a fundamental principle of standing up against discrimination. I was brought up with the same views as Elaine Smith has described. I understood that, because of my religion, I could not be king or queen of this country— [Laughter.] —not that I wanted to be.

It is important to recognise that this debate is not about defending the Catholic Church; it is about standing up against discrimination on the ground of religion. I am conscious that, given my religion and my enthusiasm for the act to be repealed, some could say that I had a registrable interest. I may be a Catholic, but at this stage I have no plans to marry a member of the royal family, although one never knows what is waiting round the corner. There is no reason why I or other Catholics should accept the Act of Settlement, regardless of whether it affects us indirectly or directly.

Many have said that this Parliament does not have the competence to amend the act. However, the Parliament was established to protect the principles of fairness and equality in a modern Scottish society. That process was set in motion by the consultative steering group. We acted on its recommendations by establishing a mandatory committee on equal opportunities. The Equal Opportunities Committee is responsible not just for highlighting unfairness in our society, but for tackling the fundamental problems that lie behind that unfairness. By having this debate, we are standing up for those principles and confronting the discrimination that lies at the heart of the Act of Settlement.

No community or individual should be treated as a second-class citizen by virtue of religion, race or other standing in society. The Act of Settlement serves as nothing other than a form of institutional bigotry. I sincerely hope that Westminster will take the views of this Parliament seriously and will see this debate as a catalyst for a change that should take place. Westminster must set that process in motion.

Cardinal Winning called the Act of Settlement a blot on our justice and integrity. Justice and integrity are two of the founding principles of this Parliament—the words are engraved in the head of the mace. By having this debate, and by collectively showing that every member of this Parliament is united against the provisions in the Act of Settlement against Catholics, we are standing up for the principles of integrity and justice. That is exactly what we were elected to this Parliament to do.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I feel some ownership of the debate. In the summer, Scotland on Sunday contacted Mike Russell and me about the prospect of the subject being raised in the Parliament. I said that that would be all right as long as it did not become a party political issue. I tell Tommy Sheridan that I am not being disingenuous in saying that I strongly object to the way in which Mike Russell has conducted himself in the debate. He did not come back to anyone—certainly not me—to say that he was thinking about lodging the motion. I am extremely upset at his performance, which demonstrates that we should be careful about such motions.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton warmly congratulated Mike Russell and suggested that now was the time to have the debate, as the millennium was coming. Did he not see the millennium coming when he was in office?

We have had a constructive and warm debate on the matter and have talked about the need to send a message. However, the message was sent by the signing of the motion.

In every debate, the Scottish National party talks about the devolution settlement. However, the people of Scotland have spoken loud and clear on the subject of devolution. The Act of Settlement is not a matter for this Parliament and is something of a distraction from the other things that the Parliament has to achieve.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

How would Mr Kerr feel about a local authority discussing the matter? In particular, how does he feel about Glasgow City Council having done so, as it did two weeks ago? It passed unanimously a Labour motion that was in stronger terms than the one before Parliament today. Was that discussion a waste of time?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Michael Russell fails to understand what we are trying to determine. We need to determine what the Parliament can and will do for the people of Scotland, not what it wishes to do.

Mike Russell's e-mail to all MSPs clearly stated that the purpose of signing the motion was to send a message about the act, not to bring the motion to the chamber. That was dishonest and disingenuous of him.

I want us to deal with the new Scotland that we want to achieve. The issue of the Act of Settlement has never been raised with me on the doorstep in years of campaigning; there has been a rarefied debate only. Nobody is saying that it is incorrect to deal with the issue, but it is not a priority and it is not practical. People want to deal with the issues of drugs, homelessness, the economy and unemployment.

The Labour Government is committed to dealing with constitutional matters. No other Government has delivered in two years the amount of constitutional change that we have. The National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament, the social chapter of the European convention on human rights, the reform of the House of Lords—those are all major constitutional changes.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I think that we all know what the Labour line is, which has been distributed for this debate. I appeal to Mr Kerr to enter into the spirit of the debate and to recall the fact that Elaine Murray brought forward a motion on the war executed. That is a reserved matter, but it is also one of principle. I ask Mr Kerr to have some grace.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

That motion was dealt with after 5 pm, and there was no vote on it.

No Labour line exists. What I have before me are my own notes, written in the light of what Mike Russell said this morning.

We are not proud of the Act of Settlement and we would like it to be changed, but we are aware that it is not a priority for the people of Scotland. Let us stick to the priorities.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

As several members have said, the Scottish Parliament is founded on the principle of equality, which should be applied to everyone.

I was impressed with the speech by Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, which was the finest that I have heard in the chamber.

I signed the motion in the name of Michael Russell because, although I recognise that the Act of Settlement is a reserved matter, I felt that we are duty bound to recognise and do something about the illiberal and in-built discrimination at the heart of our constitution. I say illiberal—and I speak for myself, as this is not a party line—as, to quote from the preamble to the constitution of the Scottish Liberal Democrats:

"Upholding these values of individual and social justice, we reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon race, colour, religion, age, disability, sex or sexual orientation and oppose all forms of entrenched privilege and inequality."

That is why I have no hesitation in supporting today's motion by the Scottish National party, which calls for the Parliament to express a view that the Act of Settlement

"has no place in our modern society"

and to affirm that

"Scottish society must not disbar participation in any aspect of our national life on the grounds of religion."

The excuse that we have more important things to do holds no sway with me. The Executive has asked Parliament to amend the motion by inserting at the end:

"recognises that . . . repeal raises complex constitutional issues, and that this is a matter reserved to UK Parliament".

I cannot see anything that I disagree with in the terms of the amendment, as it simply identifies the facts. I agree that it is a matter reserved for Westminster and that there are complex constitutional issues. I will support the amendment, as it does not take anything away from the motion—that is the important thing.

I agree with Donald Gorrie's sentiments: why, oh why, does the Executive feel that it has to take a view on every single issue? However, what I do not accept about the amendment is the interpretation—if any interpretation is put on it—that no action should be taken to repeal the Act of Settlement because it is too complex. The fact that something is complex is no excuse for inaction. I should be grateful if the Executive clarified that important point in the summing up at the end of the debate.

One of the complex issues identified in the debate is the coronation oath. I see that as something of a red herring. We live in a constitutional monarchy where the will of the people, as expressed through democratic parliamentary institutions such as this one, is supreme. In my view, there are no complex issues that cannot be reasonably overcome with a bit of political will. I am sure that this reform will not pose a problem for the royal family itself. I say that as the MSP with the privilege of representing an area that has many royal connections, Royal Deeside. In fact, I was on Balmoral estate last Friday.

I would like to widen the debate by adding one more scenario to this examination of the Act of Settlement. We have, quite rightly, focused on the religious bias inherent in the act. When, at some time in future, the whole issue of the succession to the throne is examined by Westminster, we should take that opportunity to ensure that the succession is free of gender bias as well as of religious bias. Why should male children inherit the throne before female children? In the modern world, such bias should be completely unacceptable, and we should say so.

In conclusion, I whole-heartedly support the motion, and I will support the Executive amendment. However, I would like the minister, in summing up, to assure Parliament that that amendment is not simply an excuse for others to do nothing.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I find it rather sad that some people believe the worst of us, in our motives; it is simply not so. I have felt strongly about the Act of Settlement since I was at school. I am not a Catholic; it was a mixed school. When I first heard about this abysmal piece of legislation, rather like Richard Wilson, I could not believe it. Therefore, in those childhood days, I added tackling the Act of Settlement to my long list of things to do to save the world. Today, things have come full circle: I have the privilege of being in the Parliament and being able to chip in a bit to plead with people in Scotland to take a strong stance against the act.

We have heard that issues of the day should be tackled first, but we are doing that all the time. However, issues of the day—emergencies and so forth—are always there. The suffragettes, when they went to Downing Street in 1914, were told that women's emancipation could not be dealt with because the first world war was breaking out.

I remember that in the 1970s, when we were trying to tackle racial discrimination, we were told that many more important things were happening—they patted our heads and told us to go away. Fortunately, many of us continued to pursue the matter.

It has been said that the Act of Settlement does not impinge on the daily lives of Catholics. However, we should listen to the words of Cardinal Winning—who knows an awful lot more about the matter than I do—when he says that the continued presence of the act on the statute book

"is an offensive reminder to the whole Catholic community of a mentality which has no place in modern Britain."

He says to the members of the Parliament:

"I wish all of you success in rooting out an offensive, embarrassing and anachronistic blot on our escutcheon."

Is the act of importance on the doorsteps? To my surprise, in the 1999 election, in the east end of Glasgow, in Baillieston, I was stopped on the street by people who asked me not about the euro—which I had mugged up on—but about the Act of Settlement. At one stage, I was up a ladder painting the front of my wee campaign rooms in an old butcher's shop in Baillieston main street, when a chap said, "Can you come down a minute? I want to talk to you about the Act of Settlement. What are you going to do about it?" That is absolutely true.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

No way.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

If Frank McAveety was in the east end and on the streets a bit more, he would know that.

We must take into consideration the fact that the people who approached me were deeply hurt—their families were hurt. They were Catholics who felt that they were being treated as second rate by this icon of discrimination remaining on the statute book. In this day and age, that is simply not on.

The act has cast a long shadow, from the early 18th century onwards—from a dark age, it has slithered into this one. Incredibly, that darkness will be cast upon the dawn of the 21st century unless the Scottish Parliament has the guts to move and shake opinion. It is an act of indecency—a degrading and shameful thing. From old, cruel Britannia, this is hardly cool Britannia.

I am sure that all sides of the Parliament want to get rid of the act and to move into the 21st century, sloughing off the awfulness of the past. We must move forward together, away from the sheer wickedness that was allowed to thrive. In a spirit of decency, meeting the needs of a new millennium, I ask members to join us in moving against this blot on our land.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

Religious discrimination—or sectarianism, to give it its real name—is one of the most difficult and deserving subjects that the Scottish Parliament can take on. I was born and grew up in Glasgow, a member of an Irish Catholic family. I grew up on the front line of the sectarian divide in Scotland. I remember my puzzlement, at the age of five, to discover that the boys with whom I played would go to a different school and that I would have to think of them as being different from me.

I remember the Orange marches along our road, when half the families came out to wave, cheer and applaud, and the other half withdrew into their houses, pulled down the blinds and sat in the dark until the march had passed. I remember the insidious questions: "What school do you go to? What team do you support?" I remember the upwardly mobile Catholics who suddenly discovered a passion for Queen's Park Football Club, because they were frightened to say which team they really supported.

Helping to rid Scotland of that sectarian stain could be one of the Parliament's greatest achievements. That is why I signed the motion and why I support the principles behind it. I would like to think that that is what today's debate is about. However, I am not sure. Why the Act of Settlement? Does the Act of Settlement lie at the root of sectarianism in Scotland? I do not think so. The Act of Settlement is an act of the English Parliament, passed at a time when the Scottish Parliament still existed. It did not apply in Scotland in 1701; it still does not apply in Scotland, because it has never been passed here as the Act of Settlement.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

rose—

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

rose—

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

I will deal with members' points later on—I will come to the Act of Union 1707.

But why do we not choose any one of a number of acts that were passed by the English Parliament at that time, which were probably even more offensive to Catholics than the Act of Settlement? For example, in 1700, one of the acts against popery actually rewarded with £100 people who apprehended and prosecuted popish bishops, priests or Jesuits. Before anyone gets too excited, it did not mention cardinals.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Does Mr McAllion agree that the act to which he refers was repealed at the time of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829?

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

I am grateful for that, because if it had not been, Cardinal Winning might be in trouble. I hope that the 1689 act that expelled Catholics from London was also repealed at the time of the Roman Catholic Relief Act. It required the mayor of London to arrest any Catholics found within 10 miles of the City of London. I do not want to make the race to become mayor of London any more complicated, but if Ken Livingston wins it, a family that lives in 10 Downing Street could be in very serious trouble if that act has not been repealed. [Laughter.]

It is, of course, the Act of Union that enshrines the Act of Settlement in the law of Scotland. Article II says that

"all papists and persons marrying papists should be excluded from . . . the imperial crown of Great Britain."

I know that the Scottish National party has quite legitimately campaigned all through its existence for the repeal of the Act of Union, and I hear what Alex Salmond said about its most recent manifesto. However, in a quarter century of fighting the SNP, I have never once heard it argue for the repeal of the Act of Union on the ground that it discriminated against Catholics. Not once have I been in a debate during which any SNP member has put that particular argument.

I am opposed to discrimination, whatever form it takes. I believe that the true test of any democracy is not how it provides for rule by the majority, but how it protects and nurtures the minorities within it. I support the motion, but I do not think that the amendment changes the motion in any way. The amendment does not say that change should not happen; if it did, I would not support it. But the amendment does not preclude change—however complicated that change may be—and I think that that change should take place.

However, I do not think that repealing the Act of Settlement as it exists in the Act of Union will take on the challenge of removing the stain of sectarianism from our society. If we are to do that, we will have to do it in very different ways.

Like Tommy Sheridan, I am a republican. Not only do I not lie awake worrying about who will succeed to the British throne, but when I do think about it, I am determined that there should be no discrimination. Catholics, Protestants, atheists, Muslims, Hindus—nobody should succeed to the British throne. I do not want a British or a Scottish throne. I do not want anybody to succeed to it.

Also like Tommy, I hope that the debate might set a precedent, and that we may at some time be able to take on that other great anachronism in this country—the constitutional monarchy. The constitutional monarchy puts all political sovereignty in the hands of a small political elite; it denies the people the popular sovereignty that exists in every democracy elsewhere in the world; and it makes us subjects rather than citizens. Let us have a debate about that. I think that the Catholics of Scotland would applaud that more than they would this morning's debate.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I thank Michael Russell for bringing forward the debate, and for giving up some of the Scottish National party's own debating time.

It is commendable that we began this Scottish Parliament with our legislation being subject to the European convention on human rights. To all of those whom the Parliament represents—and, indeed, to all those whom we do not represent but with whom we deal—the ECHR provides and guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion under article 9; the prohibition of discrimination under article 14; and a prohibition of the abuse of rights under article 17.

I would that Westminster had been founded on those principles. The provision of a written constitution and a bill of rights might well have guaranteed that our history did not burden our present and future with a relic of an institutional discrimination that was the product of a bygone age.

However, it seems that of greater concern at that time was the maintenance of the ruling establishment, rather than the good governance of these islands, which were then termed the British Isles. The Act of Settlement incorporated the acts of union with Scotland and Ireland and was a guarantor of the hegemony that was begun under Henry VIII and was consolidated by the so-called glorious revolution of Mary and William. It passed into statute under Queen Anne in 1701. However, it is fundamentally wrong to allow shameful anachronisms of history to sully the future.

This archaic and discriminatory act is entirely at odds with the fundamental political changes that are taking place within this group of islands. For example, the Northern Ireland Assembly agreement is specific; it guarantees such rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity under its human rights commission and legislation as

"the right to freedom and expression of religion"

and

"the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity regardless of class, creed, disability, gender or ethnicity".

Surely equal opportunity in social activity includes the right to marry without prejudice of employment opportunity, regardless of how gainful we might find that employment. The newly created equality commission has developed a clear formulation of the right not to be discriminated against and of the right to equality of opportunity in the public and private sectors. As the monarchy is both public and private sector, the Act of Settlement is clearly at odds with legislation in the present United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Some people will argue that the repeal of this outdated and discriminatory act will be complicated. There is no question about that. Any legislation that is at odds with the ECHR is a breach of the UK Government's own legislation. When Westminster commits itself to the ECHR in the autumn of next year, it will make the repeal a little more complex. However, the key question is not complexity of any repeal, but the political will to consign a discriminatory, divisive and illogical legal relic to the dustbin of history.

If we genuinely want an inclusive society, we have to include everyone from the highest level to the lowest, without exception. No one in the chamber today would challenge the ECHR. Article 9 states:

"Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".

Do we really believe that the Act of Settlement is necessary to protect public safety, public order or public health? Furthermore, I am sure that Labour members would not suggest that the act was necessary to protect our morals.

The Act of Settlement is simply incompatible with the basic agreement on human rights in Europe, and the ECHR is perfectly clear on that point. It states:

"Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention."

My message to those who argue about the complexity of abandoning the legislation is that they cannot hide behind that excuse. If they accept that abandoning this prejudicial and discriminatory act might not be a priority, is somehow too complex or impacts on too many other legislatures, they endorse this sorry piece of bigotry.

Let us make a statement of equality. Let there be no second-class citizens. Let us go into the 21st century untarnished by this tawdry little remnant of three centuries ago and state that the discriminatory practices of the darker times in our history will no longer be tolerated. Please support the motion.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Unlike Lloyd Quinan, I am unable to congratulate Mike Russell on bringing forward this morning's debate. Mike Russell's motion was fine as a members' business motion, although, as a Catholic, I did not see the issue as being at the top of my—or my constituents'—agenda. In fact, like many other members in the chamber, I wondered more about the relationship between the monarchy and the new Scottish Parliament. I wondered whether there even needed to be a relationship. However, the Scottish National party could not leave it at that. It had to waste the Parliament's time again, discussing issues in relation to which the Parliament has no power.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Does the member agree that she had the opportunity this morning to vote to discuss something that is within the competence of the Parliament, but that she voted against it?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I will come to that. Do not worry.

I understand that the SNP is trying to make a point by using its debates to highlight issues for which power is retained at Westminster, but I believe that that is an unnecessary use of parliamentary time. More important, I believe that the people of Scotland will question why we are using our time to debate issues that are the responsibility of Westminster when there are plenty of other issues that we could debate, which would affect and improve the lives of many people in Scotland.

I must make one point clear, however. I, my party, our partners in the coalition and—I believe—the majority of members in the Parliament are totally committed to equal opportunities. I totally reject discrimination on any grounds—gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. I believe that the Act of Settlement is wrong, but I have every confidence that our colleagues at Westminster will amend the act when time permits.

That brings me to our colleagues who have had that opportunity, but who have not used it, of whom Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is one and Michael Forsyth is another. When Michael Forsyth was Secretary of State for Scotland, he never considered discussing the matter. Talk about conversion on the road to Damascus.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Does the member agree that the devolution settlement for Scotland and the increasing topicality of the monarchy during the past decade are perhaps, as Lord James indicated, one reason why attention has been focused on the constitutional aspects of the monarchy, the royal family and the particular significance of the Act of Settlement in relation to the royal family?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

No. That is a total cop-out.

It might be difficult to believe, but I do not find Catholics queueing up at my surgery asking me to change the Act of Settlement so that they can become in-laws of the Duke of Edinburgh. One of the things that Catholics value highly is the sanctity of marriage, on which even the Queen has had to admit that her family does not have a distinguished track record.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Will the member give way, please?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I want to move on.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I just want to point out that—

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is the member giving way?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

No.

Why do Mike Russell and the SNP think that anyone in their right mind would want to be part of the royal family?

I was born and brought up in Liverpool. I have lived and worked in a number of places, including Glasgow and Edinburgh, but it was not until this year that I saw religious bigotry at its worst, not in my election campaign, but during a colleague's campaign in the council elections. My colleague was outed as a Catholic, as if it was something to be ashamed of. I would have had more respect for the supporters of the motion, particularly Alex Salmond, the SNP leader who lives in West Lothian, if he had condemned such action and defended the democratic process instead of backing this cynical move, which will help only a few people and supports an unelected elite.

In my experience, Catholics are just like other members of the community. They are concerned about the health service, education and jobs. Last week, we had an excellent debate on the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill. One thing that was not discussed was how we enable people with terminal illnesses to live out their last days with dignity. Living wills are a sensitive issue, but the Parliament has a duty to tackle, not avoid such issues. Many of my constituents—Catholics and non-Catholics—would feel that the Parliament was working for them if we faced up to such issues. The willingness to tackle controversial issues would be a sign that the new politics really had arrived in Scotland.

Today's debate is nonsense if we expect the people of Scotland to take the Parliament seriously. The amendment accepts that the Act of Settlement is wrong, but recognises the reality of what the Parliament can do. I know, and I am sure the people of Scotland will understand, that the SNP does not want this Parliament to work. The motion is an insult to the intelligence of the people of Scotland, particularly Catholics. If SNP members think that they can curry favour with any community in such an exploitative way, the people of Scotland will send them home to think again.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

On behalf of my party, I take exception to some of the remarks that have just been made.

I was brought up in the United Free Church of Scotland in a small mining village in south Ayrshire. My grandmother was a Catholic. Since I can remember, I have abhorred discrimination for or against Catholics throughout society, in Scotland or anywhere else. The first job that I had was as a 14-year-old schoolboy—a summer job as a cleaner in Butlin's holiday camp. The first question that I was asked was, "Whit fit dae ye kick wi?" I did not even know what the question meant. When I found out, I was disgusted.

I say to Mary Mulligan that today's debate is not a party political question for the Tories, the SNP, the Labour party or the Lib Dems. Surely the Parliament can rise to the occasion. Surely we can lift our sights above petty party politics.

This debate is about a fundamental principle. I agree with Tom McCabe that the Act of Settlement is not the talk of the steamie—if there are any steamies left in Scotland. I agree with what Tommy Sheridan said and with what Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, and I agree with Mike Rumbles that Lord James's speech was probably the best that we have heard in this chamber.

The debate is about the message that we want to send out as a new Parliament for a new Scotland in a new millennium. It is about the symbolism of the Act of Settlement and the symbolism of the continued existence of legislation on the statute book that embodies an element of sectarianism and of discrimination against Catholics.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Having listened to Alex Neil's fine words and strong statement against sectarianism and discrimination, I ask him whether he will, on behalf of the SNP, assure Mary Mulligan that the people whom she identified as being responsible for sectarian politics in her area will be dealt with very firmly by the SNP.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The SNP's approach to dealing with such people is in its constitution.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Will it deal with them?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is in our every vessel and vein to deal with anyone, whether they are members of the SNP or the Labour party or anyone else, who is practising or preaching sectarianism, anti-Catholic or otherwise, or discrimination, anti-

English or otherwise. We want a modern Scotland, a modern Britain, a modern Europe and a modern world in which the human rights of every individual are safeguarded. I speak as someone with republican sympathies, like my friend Roseanna Cunningham.

The fact that someone is a member or prospective member of the royal family does not mean that they should have their human rights undermined. This is about the human rights not just of a potential Catholic spouse of a monarch, but of the monarch himself or herself. If the monarch is a Protestant and is not allowed to marry a Catholic, that is a denial of his or her human rights as well.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Just as I was corrected earlier, I hope that Alex Neil will accept this correction. The monarch is not denied the right to marry a Catholic; they are just not allowed to succeed to the throne if they do.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

My substantive point stands—the act is a denial of human rights on both sides.

People have made a big issue of the fact that this Parliament does not have the legislative power to change the Act of Settlement. Of course it does not. We know that. This Parliament operates at three levels. We operate at the legislative level, although we do not have legislative power on this matter. We also operate on a political level and a moral level.

Mary Mulligan used the word responsibility. The Parliament does not have legislative responsibility on this matter, but I argue that we have the moral and political responsibility to send a loud and clear message—not just to Westminster and not just to people south of the border, but to our own people here in Scotland—that the Parliament will not tolerate any form of discrimination or anti-Catholic behaviour.

I agree with John McAllion that discrimination in Scotland will not end if the motion is carried or even if the act is repealed. However, this debate is about sending a loud and clear message that the Parliament is determined to end discrimination. The Act of Settlement is one part of that; it is only the beginning. We will take whatever measures necessary to convey to the people of Scotland, and of further afield, that this new Parliament and the new Scotland will not tolerate discrimination of any kind at any time, irrespective of political party.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I did not intend to do anything other than listen to the debate. I wanted to sense the mood of how the Parliament would end the last year of the century.

My mother was a staunch Wee Free and met my father, who was a Catholic of Irish background, in Aberdeen. After they had been married for a while, she changed faith. We came to Edinburgh and I had to go to school. She was a lady of forthright manner; she knew what she did and did not like. She went to the local priest—she was not very used to the system of lads with frocks on who had some kind of dynamic power, as she described it. She went to Holycross Academy, as it then was, but decided that she did not like the headmaster—he was not the man for her boy. She went down the road and saw the sign for Trinity Academy, which, because of her background, she thought was another Catholic school. I was duly enrolled.

Someone mentioned institutional bigotry. I was the only Catholic boy in a Protestant school and on the other side of the park was a Catholic school where they knew that there was a Catholic in the Protestant school. So what happened during snowball fights? My non-Catholic school friends protected me against my fellow parishioners with whom I went to mass. On the sports field I played fullback; I used to get thumped and my non-Catholic friends would thump the guys who thumped me. I understood through that that the children who went to those schools wore a blazer and that they fought the badge fight—like football and rugby clubs do every week—but did so for a strange reason, supposedly to do with faith.

I came back to Scotland to find that the world had moved on. I have been back a few years now. I came to the chamber today thinking that we would see a difference. Our subject is not political; a party has chosen in its time, as is its right, to raise a subject for debate. Mr McCabe and others have commented on the use of parliamentary time, but if a party brings forward a subject—as the Executive does regularly—the rest of us must play our part and ensure that it is discussed correctly and in a forward-looking manner.

The Scotland Act 1998 permits us to discuss anything that has an effect on the lives of people in Scotland and on Scotland's future. This debate was not supposed to give members an opportunity to go through the marvellous history lessons, although I thoroughly appreciated Lord James's version of the historical story, which he delivered in a very reasoned manner. Others have spoken well, such as John McAllion and Mike Russell. I even agreed with something that Mike Rumbles said—what a unique occasion.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Resign.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I appreciate that Mr Rumbles is here not as a party political clone but in his capacity as a human being.

I am disappointed by those members who sought to bring party politics into the debate, which is not about whether the Scots want to talk about this issue or whether it is the biggest thing since sliced bread. A member has used his democratic right to bring a subject to this Parliament and we must use our democratic responsibility to deal with the motion in a level-headed way.

We look to the future. On a party political point, Conservatives are not particularly keen on over-legislation and over-regulation.

I do not want to get into the history of the issue because we are looking to make things better for next year and the next millennium. When we consider legislation, the people of Scotland expect us to ask, "Is it any good? Is it any longer relevant? Should we just dispense with it? Does it interfere with people's rights?" That is what this debate is about. I am not going to argue about the rights and wrongs of the legislation, but this Parliament has a responsibility to lead on issues, to pick up social concerns that matter to people in different ways and to air those concerns in this chamber on behalf of the people. If that sends a message down south to Westminster that Scots in general and those who have been sent to this chamber to speak on their behalf in particular should be listened to, perhaps we can open up the next stage of the debate. No one is asking for more than that.

To echo Mike Rumbles, I believe that we need reassurance from the minister. I am happy with Mr McCabe's amendment, which sets the issue in its legislative context. However, I would like to think that the amendment amounts to a refinement of the principle in the SNP's motion. That principle should be progressed; the amendment should not be used as an attempt to halt the matter, allowing things, as has been said, to continue to fester.

I want the Parliament to look forward and to open up Scottish society to opportunities for everyone to be themselves, to get jobs and to practise their beliefs in a way that does not impinge on other people. We cannot tolerate any situation in which a person is treated as a second-class citizen because of their race, colour, religion or gender.

For those reasons, I support the SNP motion as an individual member—that should be our approach today. I thank Mike Russell for lodging the motion.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Speeches should be limited to four minutes.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Overall, the tone of today's debate has been good, although it was unfortunate that some Labour members decided to take the line of political cynicism or to argue that there were other priorities. I hope that they will reflect on that. In particular, the comments of Mary Mulligan and Hugh Henry were a disgrace to the Labour benches. People in glass houses should never throw stones. We all have our past embarrassments to deal with. I remind Mary and Hugh about the atrocious anti-Catholic comments made by Sam Campbell, the former Labour provost of Midlothian, who remains a serving Labour councillor.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I assure Shona Robison that I would reject anyone's discrimination or bigotry. It is quite wrong for her to suggest that I would not.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

If Mrs Mulligan's feelings were so strong, I am sure that she would be working to remove Mr Campbell from the Labour party.

This motion is important because we do not want Sam Campbell's comments—or those of anyone else—to be acceptable in modern-day Scotland. We want Scotland to be united in condemning discrimination against any section of the population. That is why this debate is not a waste of time. It is very important that this Parliament sends that message out to the people of Scotland and sets a lead in tackling discrimination wherever it arises.

It is also important to examine the role of the Parliament. Several people have said that we should not discuss reserved matters and have suggested that the SNP is somehow trying to destroy the Parliament by doing so. As a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, on which I am proud to serve, I remind members that equal opportunities are a reserved matter. Nevertheless, this Parliament took the right decision in setting up an Equal Opportunities Committee.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

We all welcome the fact that the Equal Opportunities Committee has been set up. The complaint that has been made of it is that the SNP spends too much time addressing what that committee cannot talk about rather than what it can talk about. We need a positive agenda in this Parliament, which we are not getting.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I say to Mr McMahon that some self-reflection is needed. The members of the Equal Opportunities Committee are hard working and I resent his comments.

The Government cannot have it both ways. This Parliament has the right to discuss all matters, including the very important matter of equal opportunities, which I wish was not reserved. The fact that we have an Equal Opportunities Committee sends out a message to the people of Scotland that equal opportunities are at the core of this Parliament's philosophy. I hope that, by the end of the day, we can reach a unanimous decision to support this motion.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I regret the comment that was made about me by Shona Robison. The question that I asked Alex Neil was whether the SNP would take action on the incidents that were mentioned by Mary Mulligan in the way that the Labour party took action on the specific incident to which she referred. I hope that there would be consistency in the SNP's approach.

Colin Campbell said that, at one point, Edinburgh was the Athens of the north. Lloyd Quinan later talked in general terms about the darker times in our history. It is apposite that we are having this debate in this chamber, as it is less than 80 years since my Irish Catholic grandparents were told by people in this chamber that they should be deported from this country. It is to the credit of this Parliament that we have moved on.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Has Mr Henry, or Mary Mulligan, made any official complaint to the SNP about the alleged incidents in Edinburgh?

Sam Campbell, who only 13 years ago was a Labour councillor, said that all Catholics should be deported from Scotland. For some reason, he specifically mentioned Eamonn Andrews. He was suspended from the Labour party for six months, after which he became a provost—the leader of the council—and he is still a serving Labour councillor. Rather than talk about what happened 80 years ago, what will the Labour party do about such reprehensible individuals in this day and age?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I hope that allowance will be made in my speaking time for the time that has been taken up by Kenny Gibson's speech.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We are very tight for time, Mr Henry.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The Labour party has acted on that issue, and I leave it at that.

We are now able to conduct a mature and responsible debate. However, I say to the SNP that many of my friends and family are quizzical about why we are spending three hours talking about the Act of Settlement—about whether or not Catholics are able to marry into what is increasingly becoming an irrelevant institution in this country—instead of talking about some of the fundamental issues that affect Catholics in this country.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

rose—

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I am sorry, but I have already taken an intervention.

Recent reports indicate that people from an Irish Catholic background are more likely to die early, end up in prison or live in poverty. Behind all this is a history of discrimination and sectarianism, as John McAllion indicated. However, the legacy of that, as Scottish society begins to move on, is that such people are unable to play a full part in many areas of life because of their class and their position in society.

Why do people from working-class backgrounds, as well as Catholics, not get into veterinary schools? Why are Catholics still under-represented in certain professions in this country? Equally, however, working-class Protestants are under-represented in many of those professions. Why are the top civil servants in this country mainly products of private schools reflecting a certain class background? We need to have a mature debate about how our society should move forward. It would be far more relevant to Catholics and many other sections of our society if, in these three hours, we were to address some of the fundamental problems that affect people living in poverty throughout Scotland, whether they be Catholic, Jewish, Protestant or Muslim.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

rose—

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Sorry. I am about to finish.

It is a credit to the Labour and trade union movement that we have put discrimination at the forefront of our agenda. Many of the gains that we have made are the result of the struggles of men and women over many years. One of the things that I am most proud of is that women—who, like Catholics, still cannot get into many golf or bowling clubs—are now better represented in this chamber because of the efforts of the Labour party in tackling discrimination.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To round off and balance this debate, I will take two final quick speeches, one from Jamie Stone and the other from Frank McAveety.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Lloyd Quinan was extremely wise to mention the Irish situation. That is very pertinent to what we are discussing today.

I endorse the comments of John McAllion. The more I think about this issue, the more complicated I realise it to be. In Belgium, King Baudouin had to abdicate for a day so that a bill on abortion could be signed. That problem might come our way, should a future monarch become a Catholic. To take a slightly ludicrous example, let us imagine that Dorothy-Grace Elder, who was in the press gallery a minute ago, wrote something offensive to Muslims and a jihad was declared against her. Would a monarch who had become a Muslim feel obliged to have a go at her? We all remember the sad situation of Lord Mackay and what happened in the Free Presbyterian Church.

John put his finger on it when he said that this was about more than just changing a few acts of Parliament. For a kick-off, it would involve the disestablishment of the Church of England. Religious authority—how a member of a particular Church does or does not take commands—would be an issue, and the decision-making apparatus of the Crown, the royal assent, would need to be examined.

Today's debate is a worthy one, but let us be honest and acknowledge that this issue is much more complicated than a few acts of Parliament. I hope that Westminster gets on with this, but let us not kid ourselves about the difficulties ahead.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I rise today only partially to respond to a disappointing contribution from Mike Russell, who had the courtesy to apologise to me in the fabled tea room.

Only in Scotland would the secretary of state have to go on national television and admit in the course of a debate that he was a Roman Catholic. Only in this country would more than 10 members have to preface their comments by indicating their religious affiliation.

What unites us is a recognition that the Act of Settlement is inappropriate in a contemporary setting. I believe that the amendment addresses that and that we can look forward to change. I do not think that we need to revisit the past. I accept what Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said in his speech. I am less interested in Lord Forsyth's contribution. If he had left it to civil servants, I am sure that they would never have brought forward the poll tax, which was a key objective of his. The Conservatives did not take the opportunity to change this legislation, but I appreciate what Lord James has said. Members of the House of Commons have had the chance to table amendments, but nobody has made an effort to do so.

Today we have an opportunity to use this debate to facilitate an open discussion about tackling issues that other members have identified. Economic disadvantage and discrimination have been endemic in Scottish life. One of the key events that changed the life experience of people from my background was, curiously enough, the Education Act (Scotland) 1918, which facilitated educational opportunities for people of my background. I know that people have views on that, and that may be a debate in the future. We share views on that privately, and openly in this chamber and in places where it is appropriate to mention such matters.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We have run over a little. I ask closing speakers to trim their speeches by one minute each.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I welcome this debate. I have been uneasy, perhaps, about the tone of one or two parts of it. Some fundamental elements have been obscured by more personal and, at times, parochial issues.

I welcome the fact that Mr Russell lodged this motion. I entirely support the amendment. Quite simply, this issue is as simple or as complex as one chooses to make it. There are two inescapable elements: the monarchy and discrimination. I will make clear my standpoint. I am a deputy lieutenant and, as such, I both support and believe in the monarchy. I am also a member and elder of the Church of Scotland and, as such, I am wholly opposed to discrimination in any form, wherever it is found.

On the question of why this issue has arisen now, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton rightly referred to devolution putting our whole constitutional process under the microscope. I do not agree with Mary Mulligan, as I think that the royal family has become more topical in the past 10 years. The constitutional settlement for Scotland has enabled an eye to be cast over the more intricate relationships that exist between Scotland and other elements of our constitution.

It was curious that Mr McCabe just about managed to omit any reference to the monarchy in his speech. I wondered whether that reflected a 50 per cent appetite for all this. At least Mr Henry was more forthright: he dismissed the monarchy as an irrelevant institution.

On the Executive's amendment, I wonder whether the difficulties are not being slightly exaggerated. It is indeed the case that seven or eight statutes would require repeal or amendment, and that, perhaps, the Church of England would have a more significant dilemma over this matter than any other religious institution. However, it is also the case that our devolution settlement involved us in a very considerable number of statutory repeals and amendments, so I cannot believe that this constitutional challenge would be insuperable. As Lord James said, reforming the House of Lords has proved to be within the management of the Government. I do not think that, in technical constitutional terms, this would be more challenging.

It pleases me to say that I have no doubt that this Parliament has a role in this matter, and I do so genuinely. In the past six months, I have been taken by surprise by how important many significant institutions in Scotland regard this Parliament to be in relation to reserved matters. It has become clear that those institutions see this Parliament as a repository for opinion, and an increasingly influential player in that role. Therefore, I entirely support what Lord James said: it is important that this chamber sends out a message that is sensible, constructive and, above all else, contemporary with the feelings and mood of the Scottish people.

If there is one thing that we can infer from this debate, it is that we are all opposed to religious discrimination, wherever it is to be found. If we can be unanimous in that message, it will do this chamber a lot of credit and will be a good advertisement for Scotland. I am conscious that the Act of Settlement as currently framed is, at best, divisive and, at worst, profoundly offensive. That is an unacceptable anachronism. I support Mr Russell's motion, and endorse the Government's amendment.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

This issue is clearly one on which many members of this Parliament and many people in Scotland have strongly held views. However, I am disappointed that, having predicated his comments on the clear desire for the need for reconciliation and unity of purpose, Mike Russell turned on both Michael McMahon and Frank McAveety. That set the tone for the rest of the debate.

Having said that, I agree with Alex Neil. He is right to say that we must raise the sights of this Parliament. I am grateful to Lord James for what was probably the most interesting history lesson that I have ever received. However, I rush to reject any notion that duelling is an appropriate way to settle issues in the 21st century. Duelling is a male preserve and, despite my commitment to equal opportunities, I am therefore excused from participation.

There can be no doubt that, historically, there has been religious discrimination in this country. Sectarianism is a scar on the soul of Scotland, and it certainly has no place in the Scotland of tomorrow. Our aim and ambition is to end all forms of discrimination: religious discrimination, racial discrimination, sexual discrimination and discrimination on the grounds of disability or sexual orientation. Achieving that is not simply about changing one act that is almost 300 years old.

Michael Matheson said earlier that he never dreamed about being the king, or indeed the queen. I certainly never dreamed about being the king. I am sure that royal marriage proposals are winging their way to Michael as we speak, but how will he feel about the horses and corgis that come with them?

The discrimination inherent in the Act of Settlement is truly offensive to many people in Scotland. The fact that it has little practical significance does not negate its symbolic significance. Tommy Sheridan is right to say that the passing of the amended motion will have symbolic significance. However, it is not just a matter of priorities; it is also about competence.

Let us get beyond symbolism and talk about areas in which the Scottish Parliament has the influence, the opportunity and the responsibility to get it right. Shona Robison was right to say that we do not have legislative responsibility for any aspect of equality. However, we have a clear role in promoting equality, and key to that is our responsibility to tackle discrimination—through education, health, employment and dealing with poverty. Those are areas for which we have responsibility.

Our programme for government set out our pledge to the people of Scotland: our pledge to work together to build a modern, prosperous and socially just Scotland. To make a real difference in people's lives, we must tackle the discrimination caused by poverty. I do not need to remind people that deprivation affects life chances. The fact that child poverty increased dramatically between 1979 and 1996 is a damning indictment of the previous Government. Two in five children in this country are born poor, one in six families are pushed into poverty at childbirth. We have a responsibility to improve the life chances of our children, to end child poverty within a generation, and to build a socially just and equal Scotland that is free of discrimination.

In working together for a Scotland without discrimination, we must search for agreement on the most effective way forward. We should not seek confrontation, which will merely make worse the problems that we are trying to solve.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

There is a huge desire across all parties for the Parliament to speak with one voice on this issue. That is of great symbolic importance. The minister has heard the concerns of the SNP, the Liberals and the Tories that the Executive amendment, phrased in complexity, might be a euphemism for inaction. In the spirit of working together, will she confirm that she does not favour inaction on an issue that she has just said is of great symbolic importance?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I want to make it absolutely clear to Alex Salmond, and indeed to Mike Rumbles, that the Executive amendment is not, and I repeat not, an excuse for inaction. I am sure, as members will be aware, that this debate and motion will be considered carefully by Westminster. However, John McAllion is right: the repeal of the Act of Settlement will not in itself end sectarianism, so let us focus on what we can do at our own hand. I am sure that members will agree that discrimination has no place in a modern society. We all believe that. Annabel Goldie was correct in her analysis of the debate. It follows that we would like to see any act of Parliament that contains religious discrimination repealed.

In closing, I will focus on the Executive's amendment and the two key points that it contains.

First—and this debate has illustrated the point well—amendment or repeal of the Act of Settlement raises complex constitutional issues. At least eight other pieces of legislation would require amendment or repeal. Similar legislation would need to be passed in at least 15 realms within the Commonwealth. There is no doubt that any process of amendment or repeal would be complex, controversial and demanding on parliamentary time—not our time, but the time of other Parliaments.

On that point, Mike Russell is wrong. It is interesting to note that he is now an expert not only on constitutional law, but on international constitutional law. Is there no end to his many talents? Perhaps it signals the expansionist plans of the SNP that it speaks for the Parliaments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries. I am sure that those Parliaments affirm our commitment to equality, but it is a matter for them, and for the whole Commonwealth, not for Mr Russell.

Secondly, the Act of Settlement is a matter reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. That is a matter of act and law, and is laid out in the Scotland Act 1998. No one can dispute that.

I say again that the Executive amendment is not an excuse for inaction. The Executive is intent on ridding Scotland of discrimination in all its forms. We believe that the way forward is by a broadly based programme of social justice that tackles poverty and ends social exclusion and discrimination in effective ways. It is a radical programme but, above all, it is a practical programme that we can deliver, one that will provide real change for the people of Scotland.

I urge Parliament to support the motion as amended by the Executive.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

The minister appears to be accusing the SNP of internationalism—a novel criticism from the Labour party, which usually accuses us of the opposite.

I had hoped that today's debate would not be one in which everyone felt the need to preface their remarks by outlining their religious background. Michael McMahon started that ball rolling, and once it started rolling, the debate followed that course, so I will declare my interest; my name is Roseanna and my confirmation name is Bernadette. Members will be relieved to hear that I have no intention of marrying into the royal family—I dare say that the royal family will be relieved to hear it as well.

Yesterday, Parliament spent almost three hours debating the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Bill, which affects a law that is more than 300 years old; it is something like 800 years old. In effect, we have set about abolishing what is widely recognised to be an anachronism. However, it is only one of the anachronisms that remain enshrined in Scots law. This morning, we are debating another and some of the same arguments should, in principle, apply.

We are, of course, empowered to sweep away one anachronism, but not the one that we are debating. I will say more about that later, but our lack of power to enact any repeal is not a reason why we cannot have an indicative vote on our wish to do to this legislation what we intend to do to feudal tenure. Let us be clear; we are talking about an anachronism that is couched in terms that are, in the words of Cardinal Winning,

"nasty, outdated and embarrassing language which should have no place in modern Britain."

This Parliament has a link with the past, but it is not about the past; its purpose is to take Scotland into the future. It would be a great pity if we had to trail this baggage into the future.

Comments have been made about the SNP taking up parliamentary time in debating a reserved matter—both Tom McCabe and Michael McMahon referred to that in their speeches. That line of argument will not wash. There is nothing to prevent the Scottish Parliament from debating and voting on a motion in which it petitions Westminster to change UK law. It was always envisaged that that would happen from time to time. From the earliest days of the Parliament it has been clear that it can discuss anything it likes, regardless of whether it can legislate on the subject.

Today's debate does not waste any of the Executive's parliamentary time—as was suggested by Michael McMahon—nor does it disrupt its legislative programme. The SNP is using its time for the SNP's choice of debate. Previous SNP debates have been on the private finance initiative, education, pensioner poverty and agriculture; this is the first on a reserved matter. The fact that we are today seeking the widest possible consensus should be seen as a sign of generosity, not niggardliness.

Both Mary Mulligan and Hugh Henry made remarks that were, perhaps, misplaced in the context of the debate. Michael McMahon's tone was also a little unfortunate. There was slight confusion in a number of speeches because members could not decide whether to attack the SNP for jumping on a populist bandwagon or for picking up on an irrelevant issue. They cannot have it both ways, but some members have tried to do so.

The debate will draw attention to some of the many areas in which the Scottish Parliament is constrained by Westminster. Some of those issues, which are germane to this morning's debate, were touched on in the debate on equalities that was initiated by the Executive some weeks ago. As I said then, the SNP has always believed that a Scottish Parliament would present us with an opportunity to take radical steps forward in Scottish society; that it would take us into the 21st century with laws that ensure that there is no discrimination on the basis of sex, age, religion, race or sexual orientation. In that debate I highlighted religious discrimination. I also highlighted some of the points that were raised in the debate today, because of their specifically Scottish dimension. Because of that dimension and Scotland's particular history and experience, today's debate is of considerably greater importance than might otherwise have been the case.

For us, in Scotland, the issue is of more than passing academic interest. All members will have received the interesting letter from the Orange Lodge, which tells us that:

"We have been following with interest the motion before the Scottish Parliament calling for a change in the 'Act of Settlement', supported by some members who perceive it to be discriminatory."

I bet that it has been following the debate with interest.

The Orange Lodge's intervention reminds us forcefully of how important debates such as this can be in Scotland. John McAllion spoke eloquently of the experiences that he had while growing up. Those of us in the Parliament who were raised in the same faith will have shared many of those experiences. I look forward to motions in John McAllion's name, in the terms that he suggested, coming before this Parliament.

On this issue we can, in truth, either defend or not defend the discrimination—we cannot pretend that it is not discrimination. That would be to fly in the face of reality. The Parliament's Equal Opportunities Committee has recognised that and, as I understand it, it considers that the act has a negative impact on the equality of Scotland's people and has commended the matter to Westminster for its attention. The Parliament as a whole is entitled to do the same.

I tabled a parliamentary question in the House of Commons, asking the Prime Minister whether he would

"make it his policy to seek to amend the law to (a) allow members of the Royal family to marry a Catholic without losing their right to inherit the throne and (b) allow Roman Catholics to inherit the throne".

I will read his answer in full:

"The Government have always stood firmly against discrimination in all its forms, including against Roman Catholics, and it will continue to do so.

The Government have a heavy legislative programme aimed at delivering key manifesto commitments in areas such as health, education, crime and reform of the welfare system. To bring about change to the law on succession would be a complex undertaking involving amendment or repeal of a number of items of related legislation, as well as requiring the consent of the legislatures of member nations of the Commonwealth. It would raise other major constitutional issues. The Government have no plans to legislate in this area".—[Official Report, House of Commons, 13 December 1999; Vol 341, c 57W.]

That is a great pity. A number of speakers have commented on aspects of that approach, such as dealing with the likely attitudes of other Commonwealth countries and the extent to which a repeal here would impact on other legislation. My colleague, Mike Russell, mentioned information that we have received from Canada. Has anyone bothered to contact other Commonwealth countries to ask what their view of such a repeal would be? I suspect that many of those countries are simply unaware of the existence of this discriminatory legislation. It would be of some use if formal approaches could be made at this stage, to ascertain just how much of an obstacle those countries would be to repeal of the legislation.

When there is political will and cross-party support, much supposed difficulty can be swept away. The idea of a royal commission has been floated in the ether, but I am not sure that I understand why such a commission would be necessary. We do not need guidance on the principle; we know that it is wrong. We need someone to examine the practicalities of making the change.

At Westminster I took part in the introduction of a bill that was presented by Henry McLeish, who was then a Scottish Office minister with responsibility for justice. That bill took all of 30 minutes to go through all its stages in the House of Commons. I suggest to the Minister for Parliament—and to all other members who are concerned about the delay and difficulty involved—that he, and they, should accept that what I have just said is the case.

With cross-party support, such legislation need not take the lengthy time to go through all its stages that has been talked about today. It can be dealt with quickly. All that SNP members ask is, "Why is that not being done?" All members, I believe, think that that omission is sad, and we can, at least, say so. The Parliament is the voice of Scotland. If the voice of Scotland wishes to make its position plain, it should not consider itself silenced merely by virtue of the fact that our vote cannot change the law. The debate might turn out to be simply the first step in the long grind referred to by my colleague, Colin Campbell. It sends out a clear message to the rest of the world: when we are confronted with the reality of discrimination, it is Parliament's duty to say, "We do not agree." I listened to the minister's closing speech. The SNP will accept the amendment and I ask all members to support the motion and send a clear message to the world that there is no place for discrimination in our Scotland.

David (None, Lothians)

Thank you. The vote will be at decision time at 5 o'clock.

Hampden Park

David (None, Lothians)

We come now to the statement on Hampden Park. As this statement is rather longer than is usual, I will time the 20 minutes' question time from when the minister sits down.

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

With permission, Presiding Officer, I would like to make a statement.

As members will be aware, Queen's Park Football Club and its subsidiary, the National Stadium plc, have run into serious financial problems carrying out major redevelopment works at the stadium. I am pleased to announce to Parliament that we are very close to reaching final agreement on a detailed rescue package that will secure not only the continuation of the project with all its aims and objectives intact, but the survival of Queen's Park, Scotland's oldest football club.

Although the problems are in no way attributable to the Scottish Executive, because of the importance of Hampden to the nation, the Scottish Executive has taken on a key role in finding the solution. The redevelopment of Hampden is a flagship millennium project—one of the largest to be funded by the Millennium Commission in Scotland. The Scottish Office was a minor funder of the project; its decision to contribute £2 million was taken in 1996 when the Conservative Administration was in power.

I announced on 14 October that broad agreement had been reached on a rescue deal but I emphasised that further detailed work and complex negotiations were required before the problems could be fully resolved. That has proved to be the case. The rescue deal is still subject to finalisation of some detailed points and completion and execution of legal documentation. I urge all the parties to permit no further delay in bringing matters to a full and final conclusion. I am very pleased, however, that a stage has been reached at which I can make a substantive statement to Parliament before the recess.

In my statement, I will give as full and frank an explanation of the background and outcome as I can. I shall do so within the constraints placed on me by contractual obligations to maintain confidentiality and by a proper regard for the legitimate commercial interests of the private companies involved.

Although the Scottish Executive and the other co-funders have played a key role in securing the deal, the co-operation of other parties, including Queen's Park's principal creditors, has been essential. I wish to place on record the Scottish Executive's thanks for their contributions to the rescue deal and to achieving an outcome that the great majority of people in Scotland will welcome. I particularly wish to thank Sir William McAlpine for his understanding and forbearance as the negotiations over the rescue package have dragged on.

Hampden stadium and adjacent land is owned by Queen's Park FC. Through agreements with the Scottish Football Association, it has been Scotland's national football stadium for nearly a century. It was a condition of Millennium Commission funding that a subsidiary company, the National Stadium plc, was set up to manage the redevelopment project and operate the stadium.

On completion of the redevelopment, the facilities will comprise a stadium suitable for football and other purposes, office accommodation, a football museum, a lecture theatre, conference and catering facilities and an all-sports injury clinic.

The original estimated cost of the project was £51 million. The Millennium Commission was the major funder, with a grant of £23 million. The Scottish Office contributed £2 million over three years channelled through sportscotland's grant in aid. Other public funders were the Scottish Sports Council, which contributed £3.75 million of lottery money, the Glasgow Development Agency, which contributed £1.6 million for derelict land clearance, the Football Trust and the then Strathclyde Regional Council and Glasgow District Council.

A management contract between Queen's Park and the principal contractor, McAlpine, was entered into and the construction works began in February 1997. Work completed to date has cost some £60.6 million. The estimated final cost is £65.7 million if all the planned works are carried out. However, the work to be completed includes works that are not essential to enable the stadium to operate fully and works relating to the Scottish football museum for which responsibility lies with the SFA Museum Trust, not the project.

The debenture scheme was launched several months behind schedule in November 1998. That did not generate the income expected for the project, being only one third taken up before it was relaunched in advance of the recent Scotland versus England game.

The project managers were successful in attracting commercial sponsorship well in excess of their original target, but that was still not enough to cover the additional costs incurred.

The cost overruns on the project have three main causes: extra costs on agreed project items as a result of increased specifications; additional works that were not part of the original project and were not agreed with co-funders; and acceleration costs to stage the Scottish cup final in May 1999.

When the Millennium Commission alerted the Scottish Executive to the present problems in late July, Queen's Park FC already owed to the principal contractor money that it was unable to pay. Having considered financial information supplied by the club and National Stadium plc, the co-funders concluded that they required an independent financial and technical assessment of the project before they could properly consider whether further financial involvement in the project was justified. The consultancy team comprised firms of quantity surveyors, accountants, management consultants and solicitors.

The purpose of the assessment was to enable the co-funders to understand how the problems had arisen, to establish or verify their full nature and extent and to identify possible solutions. In essence, we found that the project management had become product-driven rather than cost-driven. Insufficient attention had been devoted to securing the resources required to complete all the works.

On the basis of the consultants' interim findings, the co-funders agreed to move towards a work-out solution to the problems, within which they would contribute to a rescue package, subject to certain terms and conditions. The five main co-funders—the Millennium Commission, the Scottish Executive, Glasgow Development Agency, sportscotland and Glasgow City Council—were willing to contribute up to £4.4 million to the rescue package, subject to due diligence and the necessary approvals. The Scottish Executive is committed to contributing £2 million to the package.

The £4.4 million fell some way short of bridging Queen's Park FC's deficit on the capital component of the project. After proposals were put to Queen's Park FC and National Stadium plc, it was necessary for a complex process of negotiation to be undertaken with other parties that had a financial interest in the project, who might be able to contribute to the achievement of a rescue package. They included the two companies' creditors, in particular the main contractor, McAlpine, and the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Two main conditions were attached to the co-funders' further financial contribution: a new management structure for stadium operation and a viable long-term business plan for the stadium. The co-funders considered that major changes in the arrangements for governance and management of the stadium were necessary to secure viability in the longer term. They were conscious that the Scottish Football Association would be a major user of the stadium, since it would not only stage matches there but planned to rent office accommodation, space for the football museum and associated activities and make use of the lecture theatre and conference facilities and the sports injury clinic. The SFA's rental payment would have represented most of the guaranteed income for the stadium operation.

The fact of the matter is that Hampden is not the national football stadium without the involvement and co-operation of the SFA. It seemed to the co-funders to be both logical and appropriate that the SFA be asked to take on a direct role in the management of the stadium.

I will detail the key elements of the rescue package. McAlpine has accepted a settlement that involves a cash payment of £3.4 million and debentures which would cost £1.4 million to buy. The co-funders will meet the cash component and Queen's Park FC is giving the debentures from a stock that had not been offered for sale to the general public. We are in the final stages of concluding agreements with other parties to ensure that the funding gap on the construction phase of the project is bridged. I am sure members understand that these are very sensitive negotiations, but they represent the last part of the process.

The remaining £1 million of the co-funders' money will be paid to the Royal Bank of Scotland. That will reduce Queen's Park's indebtedness to the bank to a level that can be accommodated within the new management arrangements. The bank has agreed to convert its underwriting of the debenture scheme, which was due to expire in March 2000, to a term loan to Queen's Park. The bank is also co-operating in other ways that are essential to ensuring an orderly transition from the present arrangements to the new management set-up.

The SFA has agreed to take on responsibility for the future management of the stadium under a lease granted by Queen's Park. The lease will run for 20 years, with an option on the SFA's part to extend it for a further 20 years. The level of rent payments will enable Queen's Park to pay off outstanding debts and derive an income to help meet its running cost requirements. Queen's Park will continue to own the stadium and adjacent land.

There will be a reciprocal rights agreement between the SFA and Queen's Park, which will enable Queen's Park to continue to use the main stadium for matches and other purposes and the SFA to make use of Lesser Hampden for squad training and car parking when major matches are being staged in the main stadium.

The co-funders' consultants examined carefully the viability of the stadium operation in the longer term. The co-funders were satisfied, as a result of that work, that there was a viable business there, so long as it did not have to service an unduly high level of debt incurred on the construction phase of the project. The work persuaded the SFA, which carried out its own due diligence, to accept, in principle, responsibility for managing the stadium.

In taking on a full repairing lease, the SFA is, of course, accepting the operational risks and liabilities as well as the potential rewards. Responsibility for drawing up and implementing a business plan for the stadium now rests with the SFA. Despite the mistakes and misjudgments that have been made by the project—which are not attributable to any one person—we now have a magnificent national football stadium with excellent facilities on the south side of Glasgow.

Hampden is there: it is virtually complete and it is operational. It has just received the accolade of being allocated the final of the Champions League, in 2002. I am hopeful that the rescue deal will be concluded this week. If that is the case, it will maintain the historic relationship between the oldest club and Scottish football's national governing body. It will be a different relationship, but once things settle down, I hope it will be a better relationship. It will allow Queen's Park to continue to uphold the amateur principle within senior level football.

We now need to move forward. As we enter a new millennium, we want to see confidence in the project restored. We want everyone in Scotland to see that we have a national football stadium of which we can be rightly proud. I commend this statement to the Parliament.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Does the minister think that it has been acceptable for the Executive to proceed in this matter by way of continual briefings to the press, while refusing—as his deputy minister did on 9 November—to give even the most basic details to the relevant parliamentary committee?

Secondly, I turn the minister's attention to his responsibility for public money and put on record the Scottish National party's support for the national stadium. For that reason, we welcome this belated statement. Can he say why public money was committed at the outset to a project that did not have a fixed price—unlike the Millennium Stadium project in Cardiff—and did not even cover basic items such as inflation and the relaying of the pitch? Can he say why he is now prepared to commit even more public money which, whether it comes out of the education budget or end-year flexibilities, is still money that can now not be committed to education? Why is that money being committed without any real guarantees that it will not follow the last lot into the same black hole?

Is the minister seriously suggesting that by handing over the management of the national stadium to the Scottish Football Association, the public will be confident that the financial chaos of the past will not recur in the future?

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Even for the SNP, that was a super-girn. Ms Sturgeon must stop making wild accusations that are completely and utterly untrue. She has made a great fool of herself over this, on several occasions, and she is doing it again. She asked why we gave a press briefing. I am renowned for never giving off-the-record briefings to the press. On the issue of Hampden, I am renowned for saying nothing to the press—or anyone else—on my behalf or on behalf of the Scottish Executive.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Rubbish.

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Ms Sturgeon obviously thinks that I am lying and she must be able to justify that. That is a serious accusation, Presiding Officer. I hope that she will see fit to withdraw it. I have been very circumspect and have not released any information. These have been extremely difficult and detailed negotiations, involving many people. It is not appropriate to give a running commentary on them. This is not about achieving headlines, it is a serious matter that must be dealt with carefully.

Ms Sturgeon also asked why money was originally put into the project. As I pointed out in my statement, that was not done by the Executive, but by a previous Administration, in 1996. She may wish to pursue the question in that respect. We picked up the situation—a stadium was being built and there was a deficit—and we had to deal with it. She has again made a great fool of herself over the question of where the money is coming from. Again she has made the wild accusation that the money is coming from education funding. Let me reassure the chamber that the money did not come from my education budget. I can state that categorically. The money was added to my budget in September from savings that were made across the Scottish Executive budget. I hope that I will receive an apology for yet another wild accusation in due course, but I will not hold my breath.

Ms Sturgeon's final question related to the SFA's management of the project. We put in money to save the project; if we had not done so, Queen's Park Football Club and the stadium would have folded. If the SNP wants to save the project, it must accept the consequences of that—we had to put in money. We were prepared to put in further money only if there was a viable business plan—there is—and the management was sound.

More than 50 per cent of the business plan is dependent on moneys from the SFA, so it is correct and appropriate that the SFA should manage the national stadium. It has expertise in the finance and marketing department. Chris Robinson is taking a particular interest. The SFA is setting up a wholly owned subsidiary and is seeking out someone from the commercial sector to run it.

I am confident that the arrangements we have put in place are correct. We have saved the national stadium—the Scottish National party seeks to destroy it.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the minister agree that the directors of Queen's Park Football Club have displayed only too well their adherence to the amateur principle in their approach to the development? When he says that extra costs for the project have been agreed as a result of increased specifications, can he tell me who agreed and why? Who agreed to the additional works that were not part of the original project and which were not agreed with the co-funders, and why? Can he tell me who agreed to meet the accelerating costs of the Scottish cup final in May—not part of the original development time scale—and why?

In answering those three questions, will the minister tell us to what extent there was any monitoring that might have picked up on those costly decisions?

Given the amount of public money that has been put into this redevelopment project right from the beginning, and taking into account this rescue package, what does the minister think about the public taking an equity share in the stadium, which might allow a future flotation to recover some of the public funds and give the public a true stake in the national football stadium of Scotland?

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I like Mr Monteith's last point on wanting the public to start taking up shares in private companies—that is an interesting departure for a Tory politician.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

For a flotation.

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

It is quite interesting how members of his party have shifted over time; and good on them—they have learned their lesson.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am not the ideologue The Herald says I am.

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Not the ideologue, he says.

Mr Monteith raises a number of issues. I do not think that it is helpful to look at the past to find who was responsible for what went wrong. Mistakes were made and all may not have been as well as it should have been, but no one individual can be blamed—boards were involved.

Strict monitoring procedures were in place for our contribution. I cannot answer for the Millennium Commission—which is not our responsibility—or for others. Our money was all channelled through sportscotland, which received monthly updates of financial returns, and which visited the site regularly and received various certificates. We had very strict and tight controls over all those matters. There was no suggestion whatsoever of anything going wrong until the Millennium Commission pointed it out in July.

We now have a national stadium—it is up and it is operational. It is best if we now look to the future.

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I should declare an interest: I am a tenant of Queen's Park Football Club, as my constituency office is there. I welcome the statement and the fact that the national stadium can now go ahead with some certainty. The minister mentioned the wholly new body that has been set up to manage the stadium under the auspices of the SFA. How will the Executive oversee the money that has been put in? Will there be a representative from sportscotland on that board, or whatever executive body is formed? Will other organisations—including Queen's Park Football Club and, of course, the SFA itself—be directly represented so that they can look after their own interests? What will be the form of the new body?

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

As I pointed out, the agreement with Queen's Park is that it is leasing the stadium to the SFA, which will pay the club an agreed amount under the lease arrangements. It will then be entirely up to the SFA to manage that. Who it will have on the board is still a matter for discussion between the SFA, ourselves and others.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The minister has just stated that he was first aware of the problems when the Millennium Commission drew them to his attention in July, but that he was happy with the monitoring that was going on. Can he explain why the December 1998 accounts for Queen's Park Football Club did not alert him to any problems? How many times have he, his deputy, Rhona Brankin, and other ministers, been guests of the SFA at football matches? Were they guests during the period of negotiations for this rescue package that has put the SFA in the management position?

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I am not quite sure of the basis for that question, but I think that it is a nasty one. Have I been a guest? I can give a definite answer, because the records are all kept. I was certainly a guest at the Lithuania game, when I briefly discussed with the SFA the issues surrounding the national stadium, which I thought it was right and appropriate for me to do as I had responsibility for the stadium. I am sure that my friend Rhona Brankin has also been a guest. I can provide Fiona McLeod with exact details. I can see absolutely nothing wrong with being guests; if we had not been discussing the matter with the SFA, that would have been a disgrace and a basis for some comment.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Will the minister explain why he was not able to give a briefing to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee on this matter prior to his statement? Given that he has said that agreements have yet to be finalised, will he assure the committee that he will attend the committee after the recess and answer any questions, if that is necessary?

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I will be delighted—as always—to come along to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and be questioned on these matters. That is an important part of the democratic process.

Negotiations are still continuing on the final details of the rescue package. I want to give the committee the fullest and most up-to-date information, which is why I have not been able to attend before this.

The consultants will provide us with a contract round-up letter, which will be a very detailed account of the situation and take into account the issue of commercial confidentiality. I will ensure that the committee receives a copy of that letter.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

The minister explained that the Government's monitoring has been adequate and correct, but the net result has not been adequate and correct. Does he plan to review how this affair has been conducted, both by the previous Conservative Government, which started it, and the Labour Government at Westminster, which continued it? We need to learn from this situation, as other projects not far from this chamber are in development. Consistently overspending on such projects is not good news for anyone.

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

We will certainly want to review our monitoring arrangements to find out whether we could have detected signs of trouble. Our monitoring arrangements were very strict, with scrutiny of monthly financial returns and regular visits to the area to see what was happening. No signs of trouble were detected. The financial controls were good and the budget was still being kept to. We are always open to reviewing and monitoring our procedures to find out whether we can improve them.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Bearing in mind that many millions of pounds of public money, including lottery money, has gone into the Hampden project, will the minister ensure that the Royal Bank of Scotland is not allowed to hold the Scottish Executive or the SFA to ransom over the rental agreement or anything else? Furthermore, as Hampden is a national stadium, will he ensure that the national interest takes precedence over the interests of the incompetent bunglers who handed out 1,200 tickets for an international match at Hampden to a millionaire such as Sir Robert McAlpine when they could and should have gone to genuine Scottish football fans?

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

The basis of legal agreements is that no one holds anyone to ransom.

One of the reasons for the financial problems at Hampden is that two thirds of the debentures have not been sold. I hope that Mr Canavan is not suggesting that we pick up private companies' debts. That would be ridiculous.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I thank the minister for his statement. Although it is unfortunate that the stadium ran over budget, I welcome the fact that the Executive has recognised its role to find money to save the project. All parties should agree that that was the right thing for the Executive to do.

Will the minister clarify the Executive's role in monitoring the project both up to the moment it became aware of the crisis and in future?

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

As the Executive was not established until July this year, when people became aware of the deficit, it had almost no part in monitoring the project; sportscotland and previous Administrations have laid out their various monitoring mechanisms, which we will certainly want to review to find out whether anything could have been detected sooner.