Scottish Parliament, 11 January 2001

425 contributions from 83 members. The official report.

Introduction

Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill: Timetable

David (None, Lothians)

Good morning. Our first item of business is Parliamentary Bureau motion S1M-1518, in the name of Tom McCabe, which is the timetabling motion in relation to the stage 3 debate on the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the time for consideration of Stage 3 of the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill be allocated as follows, so that debate on each part of the proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion on the expiry of the specified period (calculated from the time when Stage 3 begins) -

Groups 1 and 2 - no later than 1 hour Groups 3 and 4 - no later than 1 hour 30 minutes Group 5 to Group 8 - no later than 2 hours 30 minutes Motion to pass the Bill - no later than 3 hours.— [Tavish Scott.]

Motion agreed to.

Careers Service Review

David (None, Lothians)

The next item of business is a statement by Wendy Alexander on the Scottish Executive response to the careers services review. There will be time for questions after the statement, so I ask that there be no interventions during it.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given that we are at the beginning of a new year, I would have hoped that the Executive would have made some new year resolutions. I am concerned about the fact that The Herald today carries most of the details of the statement on the careers service that we are about to hear from the minister—the details are already in the public domain. Will you look at that article and, on behalf of the Scottish Parliament, have a word with the Executive about the practice of giving information to the press before making a statement in the chamber, which is unfair on the Parliament?

David (None, Lothians)

I confess that I have not yet seen that article, but I will consider it as you have requested.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I want to make a statement setting out the key elements of the Executive's response to the Duffner committee's review of the careers service. Copies of the report and the Executive's response are being published today and will be made available directly to each member and to the Scottish Parliament information centre.

On 6 October 1999, Henry McLeish announced a review to examine the role of the careers service in Scotland and its future development. I am grateful to Barbara Duffner and the committee for the excellent report that has been produced. The Executive welcomes the report and accepts its analysis, its vision and the overwhelming majority of its 46 recommendations. The remit of the committee did not invite it to look at organisational structures but the committee's report invited the Executive to take up that challenge and we have done so in the response that we are publishing today.

The Duffner committee's report acknowledges the high degree of professionalism and commitment that is provided by the careers service's 1,000 staff across Scotland, but pointed to shortcomings in the current arrangements. Those shortcomings include: the variability in the quality of careers guidance; the lack of a consistent performance framework; the fact that too many organisations clutter the landscape; and the poor information about the skill needs of the economy. Sadly, that analysis vindicates the fears that many of us expressed when the Tories introduced the private company contracting model almost a decade ago. It appears that the arm's-length contractor model is no more appropriate for a careers service than it is for a health service or economic development services.

Our challenge is not just to deal with the poor structures; there is also the clutter. Simply understanding the current organisational arrangements is a task in itself. There are 17 careers service companies, 20 education-business partnerships, 22 adult guidance networks and 22 local learning partnerships across Scotland. This theme of confusion and clutter, inconsistency and incoherence was also highlighted by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee in its recent report.

The fact is that, as the needs of learners and the economy changed in the past decade, we kept adding to the clutter. The result is that we have too many bodies tripping over each other, leaving school leavers, parents, other jobseekers and employers confused about where to go and whom to go to for help in today's fiercely competitive jobs market. That is the nub of the issue.

The challenge is not simply to sort out the privatised company model that the Tories left us or even to streamline the clutter. The challenge is to stay ahead of the game by recognising how the world of work has changed and how it will change further in the future. None of us can rely on making a choice at the age of 14 in an interview with our careers officer that can carry us into a job for life. Most school leavers today will also make key choices at 16, 18, 23 and a number of points later in life. Some of us in the chamber may find ourselves in need of the careers service after May 2003—personally, I would prefer to delay having to call on its services, but I will leave that to a later date. My strategy to avoid having to go to the careers service at that point is to ensure that the Executive keeps its promise to do more to ensure that every Scot is ready for the jobs of tomorrow. That is what the Duffner committee has asked us to do.

We propose a bold new solution to put Scotland at the forefront of the best careers advice for every Scot, whatever their age, background or ambition. We want all Scots to be ready for an age in which our personal prosperity—what we earn as individuals and as a nation—depends on what we learn. We propose to set up a new one-stop shop for careers advice for all Scots in every area. We will sweep away the clutter to allow one-door access to all the services currently provided by the careers service, the adult guidance networks, the education-business partnerships and the local learning partnerships. There will be a single door in every area: careers Scotland Ayrshire, careers Scotland Renfrewshire, careers Scotland Borders and so on. Each of those 22 local organisations will be part of careers Scotland, which will be a national service with national marketing, a national brand and national standards.

We are determined to commit the resources required to make that new all-age guidance service effective. We will provide £24 million additional resources over the next three years, which is a real-terms increase of 25 per cent on current budgets. That includes £9 million to develop the all-age aspect and a further £15 million to support the recommendations of the Beattie committee. Our vision is one of expansion and growth and we will build on the best of the current arrangements.

The main focus of the careers service has been young people in schools. The core purpose of education is the development of the talents and abilities of all young people to their fullest potential. Therefore, careers Scotland must improve the service to schools. Impartiality of advice will be fundamental. Close links to school-age pupils and their teachers will be at the heart of the service. There will be a national structure setting national standards based on the agreed priorities for education, which will mean that for the first time many head teachers across Scotland will know what quality of service they can expect in their school. Schools will also be able directly to influence their local careers Scotland board, which will be obliged to seek feedback from schools and pupils.

The Duffner committee also made recommendations on the need to review the education for work agenda. Jack McConnell and I are keen to take that forward, drawing on the experience of Nicol Stephen as a minister formerly in the enterprise department and now in the education department.

Our careers service was built around the world of school and the world of work. Today, however, for more and more school leavers, the transition is from school to further learning—whether at college or university or through skillseekers—and later to work. Too often, however, those other educational interests, such as colleges, universities, training organisations and community education establishments—the whole learning industry—have been left on the outside when the service was being planned. It does not make sense to cut our educators out of that planning process in an age in which more and more of us rely on learning throughout life, which is why all our educators will have their place at the heart of the new service. That is how we will make a reality of lifelong learning for more and more Scots.

We should not kid ourselves; the lifelong learning agenda is pretty complex and lots of players have a role in it. However, there has been no forum to bring together the key stakeholders so that they can make an input into the development of the careers service. We will provide national leadership through a new ministerial board, which will report directly to me or my successors. All the key stakeholder interests, including local authorities, further and higher education, employers, the Employment Service and the trade unions, will be represented. The local careers Scotland organisations will have their own advisory boards, bringing together those key partners.

I have already stated our commitment to national standards, public accountability and a public service ethic. It is also vital that those who work in the service better understand the real needs of the economy, so that they can better help those who are seeking jobs in the new world of work. That requires expert advice, rooted in a good understanding of the jobs of tomorrow. We therefore propose that the new careers Scotland service be established as a joint-venture subsidiary of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

In each area, the local careers Scotland organisation will work side by side with the local enterprise company. Through that alignment between careers Scotland and the enterprise networks, we will help to ensure that, in future, learning, skills and employability are at the heart of the work of enterprise networks. The enterprise networks have already embarked on a programme of management change to eradicate overlap and bureaucracy and to make the networks more customer focused in their business support operations. Today's proposals deliver a one-door approach for skills.

Realigning 80 organisations into 22 will release resources from the support of a high organisational overhead into direct service delivery. We also envisage new web-enabled services, provided on an all-Scotland basis. For the staff of the existing 80 organisations, the proposed new structure will, for many of them, mean a return to the public sector. All relevant and appropriate staff will become employees of the enterprise networks.

Our plans will provide stability and predictability of funding, which is simply not possible under the current organisational and contractual arrangements. As employees of a national organisation, staff can expect to get opportunities for personal growth and development. The structure has to support the staff to enable the staff to deliver for their clients.

What the Executive is proposing builds on the foundations of the present careers service and on the recommendations of the Duffner committee. It is a significant undertaking. We want to provide 12-month planning, starting with a targeted consultation on these proposals, which will begin today.

There is much detail to be decided. We plan to work through all the details of the transition during the year from April 2001 to April 2002. We recognise the professionalism and commitment of the guidance staff; we want to build on that. Much work and negotiation will be required; that work will take place with the relevant trade unions. We have also invited the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to help us to determine the detail on the way forward. We have written to the committee, inviting its members to give early consideration to the response published today; we look forward to receiving their views on how to proceed.

Let me conclude by saying what the proposals mean for Scots—at 14, when they are considering their options, at 23, when they are looking for their first job, or at 45, when they are deciding to change career direction. Our promise to all those Scots is that, within two years, we will have a world-class, one-stop-shop guidance service that helps them to discover what they want to do, how to do it and how to use those skills in tomorrow's economy.

If the Parliament endorses the Executive's plans, it will be demonstrating that Scotland is a nation that once again aspires to lead in learning and skills acquisition; a nation that is willing to act boldly in the client's interest, putting that before the provider's convenience; a nation that will commit resources to what matters; a nation that is rising to the challenge of demanding accountability and higher standards; and a nation that is committed to public service. All that will help to ensure that no one is left behind in the new Scotland and that every Scot will be ready for tomorrow's jobs. I invite colleagues to support the Executive's plans.

David (None, Lothians)

Before calling Kenny MacAskill, I should point out that a lot of members wish to ask questions. I therefore ask for short exchanges. We will try to get everybody in.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Scottish National Party broadly welcomes the minister's statement, but I seek clarification on matters from the perspective not so much of the individual as of the national interest. We face serious skills and labour shortages in tourism and electronics, for example. In engineering, 100 years after we were a world leader, we also have a serious deficiency in skills and labour. Will the minister ensure, for our national interest, that the role and remit of careers Scotland will not simply be to find a job for the individual, but actively to identify and encourage youngsters and others to enter into those key, core sectors of our national economy? Although we cannot force them into employment, the new service must be proactive. Will the minister ensure that it is proactive in the years to come in identifying the areas in which we have those key, core shortages?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I whole-heartedly share Kenny MacAskill's desire for us to address more effectively the skills needs of the Scottish economy. The Scottish population is declining and we need to get better at skills matching. The question is who does that. The job of the careers service is to help people to figure out what they want to do. Once they know that, it is then the job of other providers to provide the training. The Scottish University for Industry, once we formally launch it next week, will be a major provider of skills. We have to get better at understanding the skills needs of the Scottish economy, which is something that the enterprise networks also need to do better. We must ensure that careers Scotland and the advice that it gives are impartial.

Our vision is that careers Scotland will help people to figure out what they want to do, that the University for Industry will help to provide people with the relevant skills and that Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, working with employers, will better identify the skills needs of the Scottish economy. That will improve job matching in the way that we all expect.

Nick Johnston (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I suppose that I should start by congratulating the minister on avoiding the use of the word "rebranding". I welcome her statement and her courtesy in circulating it beforehand, so as to allow us to respond. The Conservatives welcome many of the measures that she has announced this morning. It is a shame, however, that she dismissed the private sector so cavalierly. That always makes me wonder—if it is good enough for National Air Traffic Services, why is it not good enough for the careers service?

We have some reservations about the proposals for the new structure. Given the weaknesses in governance that were recently exposed in the Scottish Qualifications Authority fiasco, exactly what governance role will the specialist boards be expected to play? How will the minister maintain accountability? On measures of effectiveness, what performance measures would the minister find appropriate, and over what time scale?

One of the major recommendations that we welcome is the widening of the client base and the enshrining of the principle of free access to all. We note that, although the Executive accepts that principle, the response does not commit it to providing free access to all; it merely notes that the cost implications need to be established. At what cost level can we look forward to free access for all? To put it another way, is the provision of guidance limited to the £9 million of funding that was announced today?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The first of Nick Johnston's three points was on governance. Careers Scotland will be responsible to the lifelong learning minister, but it is important to bring all the stakeholders together for the first time. That will be done through a national supervisory board. There will also be local supervisory boards. We rejected the option of creating a new quango, judging that to be inappropriate. We also rejected the option of turning people back into civil servants and the option of leaving them all out in the private sector. We think that we have come up with the optimal governance arrangements for the sake of public accountability, but think that those arrangements will allow the new service to work closely with partners and help to make the labour market work more effectively in the interests of the client.

On the future distribution of resources, we have resisted coming up with a formula for funding the new careers Scotland organisations. It seems to us that, critically, the new supervisory board, with all stakeholder interests represented on it, will want to take a view on how the 25 per cent increase in resources over the next three years should be spent. Indeed, today I will write to those organisations that we envisage will be represented on the supervisory boards to ask them to be involved over the next 12 months in a steering committee to consider resource distribution early on.

On free access, at the moment, if someone who is not 14 or 16 walks through the door of a careers service and asks for advice, almost every careers service in Scotland will, to their immense credit, try to help that individual. We recognise that there are an awful lot of committed professionals who are trying to help all Scots; we will now make it their mission to do so. We will provide an additional £9 million for that function and an additional £15 million to help those who have special needs in the labour market. On costing free access, the answer is that we will seek to help people who walk through the door. However, the real challenge is to encourage more Scots to walk through the door; this is not about whether there is enough money to go around.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I welcome the minister's statement, and in particular the announcement of an extra £24 million for the careers service, which plays an important role in developing our young people and guiding them on their future careers.

I would like clarification on two points. First, the minister said which partners would be involved in the local advisory boards, but who will decide who is represented on the boards? Will the minister decide that or will there be some other mechanism?

Secondly, will all members of staff who are currently employed in the private sector automatically transfer to the public sector or will they have to reapply for their jobs? Obviously, many of those members of staff will be alarmed by today's announcement unless reassurance is given on how their careers will pan out.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I will comment first on the composition of local advisory boards. At the moment, we issue guidance suggesting that the membership of the local boards for the careers service should be split 50:50 between employers and local government. We are saying that in future we want the character of those boards to be tripartite: a third of board members will represent the school education and local authority interest; a third will represent the lifelong learning interest—universities and colleges—which has not hitherto been at the table; and a third will represent employers. In the past, the boards have operated to general guidelines and it will of course be a matter for the national stakeholders to decide whether they need to go any further than simply giving guidance to that effect. I hope that guidance will be sufficient, because I think that the principle of a tripartite structure will be widely welcomed.

The reassurance for staff lies in the fact that more than 1,000 individuals who are currently in the private sector will have the opportunity to be part of a national organisation in the context of a 25 per cent real-terms increase in resources. As the transition takes place over the next year, we will want if possible to avoid a situation in which people have to reapply for their jobs. The details are a matter for the implementation over the next year, but there is no desire to force a widespread reapplication if that is not appropriate, although it may be necessary in some cases.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

I welcome the minister's statement. I am sure that it will be welcomed by everybody who is involved in careers development in Scotland. An effective careers service offering coherent guidance for people of all ages is becoming ever more important as the knowledge economy develops. Will the minister expand on what the proposals will mean for the staff of the careers companies? Is it likely that the changes will result in an enhanced career path for them?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I think that the changes represent a very exciting prospect for staff. At the moment, staff are scattered among 80 organisations. One of the tragedies of the past decade, in which there has been an 80-contract model, is that it has been difficult for staff to move between different organisations or for there to be a national structure of continuing professional development. There is no doubt that establishing a national organisation will create circumstances in which the professionalism of staff is enhanced and recognised, and in which continuing professional development is available to allow staff to put more services on the web and enhance their personal mentoring role. The fact that staff will not be spread around 80 organisations but will be focused in a central organisation is an exciting development.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Clearly, every party is giving a general welcome to the proposals. As convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I say on its behalf that we agreed yesterday to respond positively to the minister's request for our input to the discussion paper.

I will highlight two points. First, a welcome aspect of the proposals is that, for the first time in a long time, we will have a national adult guidance service covering the whole country. Will the minister consider focusing at least some of the additional funding on adult guidance, which is grossly under-resourced or even non-existent in many parts of the country? In talking about lifelong learning, we should recognise in particular that people aged over 45, who are the hard core of the long-term unemployed, need assistance to find new jobs and training and education.

Secondly, one of the benefits and strengths of the careers service is that it provides advice, counselling, guidance and placement. Will the minister clarify her view on the need to maintain all four services? Will she consider the co-location of careers offices with one-stop shops for benefits and with jobcentres? One of the problems of the careers service, particularly in relation to adults, has been the divorce of the local careers service from the jobcentre and the Benefits Agency.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I thank Alex Neil's committee for flagging up in its report last summer the need to deal with the clutter. I welcome the fact that the committee will participate in the consultation within the tight time scale that we have set.

Alex Neil referred to the all-age aspect of our proposals. In England and Wales, there is a generalised youth advisory service rather than the all-age service that we think is so critical to raise the competitiveness of the Scottish nation and to support all Scots.

Alex Neil also raised the issue of placement. In its 46 recommendations, the Duffner committee has suggested that the placement role should revert to the Employment Service. The Executive has supported that recommendation, but we will keep an open mind during the consultation period and look forward to hearing people's views on that.

On co-location, as Alex Neil will know, one of the exciting developments that is taking place this year is the integration in the new working agency of the Employment Service and the Department of Social Security. It is undoubtedly encouraging that that process is running parallel to the creation of careers Scotland. I think that people on the ground will take advantage of the opportunities for closer co-operation and working.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The minister said that no one would be left behind in the new Scotland. I will test that statement in two ways. First, in response to the various points that have been made about staffing levels, the minister's response has been at best lukewarm. She said that she hoped that no one would have to reapply for their job but could not guarantee that that would not happen. She also said that the career prospects of some staff would be enhanced. That certainly does not mean that the jobs of those staff who, according to her statement, are not particularly relevant will be secure. From her previous life as a management consultant, can she tell us whether jobs are usually added or lost when agencies are joined together? Will the overall number of people working in the service increase or decrease?

Secondly, in October 1999, I asked the minister's predecessor whether national guidance was given on dealing with clients with learning disabilities and whether there were national standards for that. The answer was that the position varied between the various networks. Do the guidelines that are being introduced refer to clients with learning disabilities and special needs? If not, why not?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Dearie me, Duncan—do not be so negative and mealy-mouthed. The implication of arguing that we are scaremongering by saying that there might be some consequence for some member of staff is that we should not change anything. Let me be clear: there are 1,200 members of staff, 1,000 of whom are scattered around a variety of organisations that the Tories created. We are recognising the public service ethic of their work and we are giving them the chance to become national employees once again, with a national career development structure. Moreover, we are adding 25 per cent to the budget over the next three years.

I am absolutely clear that I would like all those people who dedicate their professional lives to the careers service to continue to have a role in that. However, it would be a stupid minister who said to any of the organisations at the moment or in the future that everybody will do the same job as they do now. A lot of careers service work involves lifting information off shelves to try to help people. We can put all that information on the web; when we do so, those 1,200 professionals will be able to offer a different, better and enhanced service through personal mentoring.

On whether I will personally guarantee that everybody's job will be exactly the same, no, I will not guarantee that no job will change, because Scotland needs us all to do different and better jobs. However, I do not expect that the majority of positions will have to be reapplied for. Whether all 1,200 people will do exactly the same job is a matter for the transition teams over the next 12 months; it is not the sort of promise that anyone should try to extract from a minister.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

What impact does the minister think that careers Scotland will have at a local delivery level on the adult guidance service and what impact will it have on helping to promote a culture of lifelong learning, especially among those who currently feel excluded from education and training?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

We very much hope that by creating an all-age service we will transform adult guidance in Scotland. One of the problems is that no employer knows whether the adult guidance network is going to be around this year, next year or the year after. They do not know whether the education-business partnerships or the local learning partnerships will be around next year or the year after. It is important to bring all those organisations together, to make all-age guidance a statutory responsibility and to ensure security of funding for the long term, which is not the case in adult guidance at the moment.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The minister said that we would have a one-stop shop with career advice for all. However, as we will have 22 local organisations, which is less than one for every council, I presume that the structure will be completely different. Will there be access to the service in every council area other than through the web?

The minister said that a third of the advisory board would come from the schools sector, a third from higher and further education and a third from employers. One of our biggest needs in Scotland is for retraining. Where are the Scottish Council of National Training Organisations, the Engineering and Marine Training Authority and the other national training organisations in this—are they players or not?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I welcome the opportunity to clarify the structure. We envisage the involvement of the whole learning industry, including learning organisations, schools, colleges, SCONTO and the employers. It is essential to recognise that, while people are educated at school, lifelong learning must be also be represented at the table, which it is not at present, as must employers.

Currently, the careers service is organised according to local enterprise company areas; we intend that that should continue to happen. There are 22 LEC areas in Scotland. The reason why there are 17 careers service companies at the moment is that, in Highland, five LEC areas have chosen to co-operate to attain economies of scale. We are anxious that, during the consultation, those involved in the service in Highland should choose whether they want to be in discrete organisations or to continue to collaborate—in a year's time, there will either be 22 organisations, one for each LEC area, or 17 organisations if those five areas choose to continue to co-operate. We will listen carefully to their representations on what would best suit their needs.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Wendy Alexander has just answered the question that I was going to ask. I welcome the commitment to better links between the careers service and careers guidance teachers; perhaps I can arrange to meet Nicol Stephen to discuss that.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

That gives me the opportunity to say that, as I hinted in my statement, the one area in the Duffner report that we are not building into the new careers Scotland is the education for work agenda—what is done in schools to assist young people to understand the world of work. That is an important area, which Jack McConnell and I have discussed. We are so keen to take it forward that we think that it needs a fresh look by a minister. As Maureen Macmillan indicates, Nicol Stephen is uniquely equipped to do that, as he is familiar with the enterprise and the education departments.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

My question is about school leavers, who will continue to be major users of the service. At the moment, most pupils just go down the corridor for an appointment with the careers adviser. How easy will it be for them to access that advice via the more remote careers Scotland offices? Can the minister assure schools and pupils that they will continue to be a priority and that no new barriers will be created for young people who are seeking careers advice?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I give exactly that assurance. When we talk about a one-stop shop, we mean bringing together the four organisations, but that does not imply that the location of advisers necessarily changes. Indeed, by bringing together the careers service with the education-business partnerships, we hope to diminish some of the barriers. The most important assurance for school leavers is that at present, in the absence of any national standards, no head teacher, parent or pupil knows what standard of service they have the right to expect, whereas, with the establishment of the national ministerial board, the national education priorities published by Jack McConnell earlier this year will be at the heart of the service. For the first time, teachers, parents and pupils everywhere in Scotland will know what they have the right to expect from the service—it will not be left to the whim of individual private sector companies.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

The minister will be aware of the unique structure of the careers service in North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire, where the councils provide benefits in kind through facilities and employee support. Will the minister tell us the outcome of any discussion of those areas in relation to the planned new structure?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

In Glasgow and Lanarkshire, employees of the careers service have continued to be employed by local government and those local authorities have made a large contribution in kind to the service through premises and other benefits. It is right that the future funding arrangements should recognise the in-kind contributions that some local authorities have made to try to preserve a public service ethos in the service.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The logic of the minister's answer to Duncan Hamilton's question was that, without the web, professionals in the careers service could not provide a service. Surely, if they are professionals, it is because they can bring together information and give advice. I do not believe that the minister wished to demean those professionals. Will she take the opportunity to correct the impression that she gave?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to launch the web-enabling service of Grampian Careers, which I commend as an outstanding example of a careers service that has put its information on the web. That means that, at the touch of a key, the information is directly available to parents, teachers and anybody else who comes in, thus freeing the careers service staff to enhance their professionalism by moving into personal mentoring and support for individuals—they no longer have to do some of the tasks that the web can make easier. It would be a sad day if, in talking about equipping every Scot for tomorrow's jobs, we said that we were not going to take advantage of the opportunities that the web offers in providing services.

Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

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

We now move to stage 3 of the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill. I will make the usual announcement about the procedures that will be followed. First, we will deal with amendments to the bill. We will then move on to debate the question that the bill be passed. For the first part members should have SP Bill 20A, as amended at stage 2, and the marshalled list, which contains the amendments that I have selected for debate and the groupings.

Each amendment will be disposed of in turn; amendments will be debated in groups where appropriate. An amendment that has been moved may be withdrawn with the agreement of members present. It is possible for members not to move amendments if they so wish. The electronic voting system will be used for all divisions, and I will allow an extended voting period of two minutes for the first division that occurs after each debate on a group of amendments.

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

We start with amendment 1, which is grouped with amendments 1A and 1B. I call Richard Lochhead to speak to and move amendments 1 and 1A.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Amendment 1 is the amendment that nearly got away. I am not simply amending my own amendments for the sake of it. Amendment 1 was originally lodged in the name of John Home Robertson, who will be familiar with its wording, because he wrote it. However, John Home Robertson withdrew his support for the amendment, which is why it now carries my name.

The crux of amendment 1 is that it will ask ministers to report on

"whether, in the opinion of the Scottish Ministers, the constitution or composition of district salmon fishery boards should be altered in order to contribute towards the conservation and management of salmon."

Amendment 1A would require that to happen within one year of the bill being passed, which we expect to happen later today.

We cannot divorce conservation from management issues. The better the management structures, the more likely it is that conservation measures can be implemented in an efficient manner. For historical reasons, the management structure of salmon fisheries is largely dominated by landowners, albeit angling and other interests play a greater role than ever before. The Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill will increase the powers of fishery boards, making it more important than ever that we get things right.

As most members will know, fishery boards come in all shapes and forms. Some boards have local authority representatives co-opted on to them, whereas others do not. Some boards have co-opted representatives of environmental interests, whereas others have not. In some districts, the netsmen feel under threat from upper and lower proprietors on the boards. In others, lower proprietors feel under threat from upper proprietors. As they currently stand, the district salmon fishery boards belong to the Victorian era. We must drag them into the 21st century. A proper review of their role and effectiveness is long overdue.

During the stage 1 debate, the Minister for Rural Affairs, Ross Finnie, said:

"The issue is under review and we concede that it requires further consideration."—[Official Report, 23 November 2000; Vol 9, c 370.]

In the stage 2 debate, when speaking to his amendment, the former Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, John Home Robertson, said:

"Many boards work conscientiously in the public interest. However, their constitution is still fundamentally flawed and unrepresentative."

He went on to say:

"I hope that the requirement to make such a report"—

as is outlined in the SNP amendment—

"will help to keep the momentum for progressive and constructive reform of the management of Scotland's freshwater fisheries."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs Committee, 12 December 2000; c 1531.]

The SNP proposes that we embed the amendment and seeks a commitment from the Executive to bring back a report within one year so that we can ensure that ministers have addressed those important issues and continue to do so. Amendment 1A would allow us to democratise our salmon fisheries sooner rather than later.

Amendment 1B is about openness and transparency. In the land debates in the Scottish Parliament, we have talked about who owns Scotland. Everyone agrees, except perhaps the Tories, who roll over to be tickled every time they see a landowner, that Scotland should know who owns our land. The SNP believes that that principle should be extended to privately owned fisheries in Scotland. We should be able to ascertain to what extent our regulations have been successful.

I hope that the Scottish Executive will give the Parliament a commitment to bring forward a report along those lines on a regular basis—not just one year from the passing of the bill, but annually or biannually thereafter. That would give us a picture of the state of Scotland's salmon fisheries, let us know what regulations are in force, what the latest catch figures are, the number of boards in existence throughout Scotland and the membership of those boards.

In recent months, I have lodged several parliamentary questions, the answers to which demonstrated that the Executive does not know who owns Scotland's private fisheries, and does not have details of the people who sit on Scotland's salmon fishery boards and who take so many important decisions about Scotland's natural heritage. The SNP is asking that we remove the mystery from Scotland's salmon fisheries. If property companies in London are buying up Scotland's national heritage, let us ensure that such information is in the public domain. We want to know about it. Let us ensure that the public can access that information and that it is transparent. Such a report would bring all that information into the public domain and would place the onus on the Government to make it public, rather than rely on the good will of salmon fishery boards. Such a report would act as a point of reference and could only make future conservation measures easier to formulate and more effective in practice. I seek Parliament's support for all my amendments.

I move amendments 1 and 1A.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Amendment 1 echoes some of the sentiments that were expressed during debates at earlier stages of the bill's passage about whether district salmon fishery boards, as constituted, are the appropriate bodies to be entrusted with the management of salmon fisheries.

Changes in board composition are beyond the purpose of the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill, which is intended, as a matter of urgency, to give boards access to measures that will enable them to ensure that there will still be fisheries to manage in the future. As I said during the stage 2 debate, the major review, "Protecting and Promoting Scotland's Freshwater Fish and Fisheries", is the place for an examination of the optimum management structures for all freshwater fish species, not just salmon.

The review was launched while John Home Robertson was the deputy minister responsible for salmon and freshwater fisheries. He deserves credit for that important initiative. The review has been the subject of an extensive consultation process and we received more than 200 responses. I expect to receive the results of the detailed analysis of the responses within the next few weeks. Thereafter, I intend to meet with the main representational bodies in the sector, with a view to publishing a green paper in the summer.

I urge Richard Lochhead to withdraw his amendments.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I welcome Richard Lochhead to the debate. Some of us have been taking an interest in aspects of salmon fishery management in Scotland's rivers, lochs and other fresh waters for quite some time. As I recall, Richard Lochhead did not have anything to say on the matter during the stage 1 debate. However, he has picked up the issue and is all the more welcome for it.

As I have already indicated in debates at stage 1 and in the Rural Affairs Committee, I am rather uneasy about any extension to the statutory powers of district salmon fishery boards as they are currently constituted—dominated by landowners and fishery proprietors under legislation that dates back to Victorian times. Crudely put, I did not come to the new Scottish Parliament as a Labour member to legislate to extend the authority of people who own salmon fishing rights. I have seen quite enough of that sort of thing in my 22 years in the House of Commons. However, I should say that most of that legislation was initiated in the House of Lords—that is the way that such things happen. There are grounds for confidence that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive, or Government, will be proceeding with relevant legislation in due course.

As Rhona Brankin has said, the bill is about conservation. All sides of the Parliament and people throughout Scotland support the principle of conservation. Recent evidence about the dire state of salmon stocks makes it painfully clear that we need to have powers to restrict angling in certain circumstances. We should also stand ready to do more about predators, pollution, parasites and river and sea habitats wherever possible. However, we need representative and accountable local fishery boards, with appropriate representation for anglers, environmentalists and the wider community to take responsibility for enforcing local conservation measures and for managing all aspects of freshwater fisheries. That applies not only to salmon, but to brown trout and coarse fish. I welcome the ideas put forward by Angling for Change on that general point.

As things stand, district salmon fishery boards are heavily dominated by landowners. Under current legislation, they have quite extraordinary powers. They appoint and employ water bailiffs, who have a unique ability to secure convictions with uncorroborated evidence. That is a strange thing. One policeman's evidence is not enough to get a conviction for assault or theft, but one water bailiff's evidence is quite enough to secure a conviction for poaching.

I could go on to talk about powers of entry to search property and so on, but it gets worse. Where there is no district salmon fishery board, it is possible for a single proprietor to appoint a bailiff and all the rest of it. Bluntly, we should not be adding to that Victorian legislation. We should be replacing it with a system that makes sense for the 21st century. I trust that this Scottish Parliament will fulfil that responsibility as soon as it can.

The issue of management structures is raised in the consultation paper "Protecting and Promoting Scotland's Freshwater Fish and Fisheries", which, as Rhona Brankin said, we launched in April. The consultation period finished just before I left office as Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, and I am interested to hear that more than 200 responses have been received.

I remain unhappy about extending the powers of the existing boards, even temporarily. I agreed to do so when I had responsibility for fisheries at the rural affairs department, because we had already set the agenda for comprehensive reform of freshwater fisheries management in the "Protecting and Promoting Scotland's Freshwater Fish and Fisheries" document, and because I had reason to be confident that that agenda would be taken forward.

My former ministerial colleagues have been cautious in their responses on this subject at stage 1 and in committee, for reasons that I understand perfectly well. I lodged my amendment with a view to promoting further discussion on the subject, and following discussions with Rhona Brankin, I withdrew it. It is worth discussing this matter further. I hope that she will take the opportunity to confirm that the Executive or Government—whatever it is called—expects to take forward the agenda that is set out "Protecting and Promoting Scotland's Freshwater Fish and Fisheries" in due course. I hope that that will be done as soon as possible.

I am certain that there is consensus in most parts of the chamber, although perhaps that does not include the Conservative party, about the need for radical reform of the constitution of salmon fishery boards to embrace other freshwater fish as well. This is an area in which progress should take priority over pragmatism, and the sooner the better.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I take issue with John Home Robertson on one point. He is slightly confused about why this measure was rejected in committee. It is plain that this bill gives Scottish ministers the power to make regulations; it is not about enhancing the power or authority of district salmon fishery boards per se. However, I agree with the sentiments that have been expressed. Down the line, when another bill is presented to Parliament we will have the opportunity to examine these issues. I believe, as do most of the members of the Rural Development Committee, that this is not the time or place to proceed with this matter.

I will deal specifically with the amendments in Richard Lochhead's name, although I know that at stage 2 John Home Robertson lodged an amendment similar to Richard Lochhead's amendments. I wish members to know that the measures in Richard Lochhead's amendments were thoroughly discussed at the Rural Affairs Committee, and were rejected by the committee on the grounds that the bill that we have before us today is about the conservation of salmon, not about district salmon fishery boards. That is the short point that I wish to make.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I too supported John Home Robertson's original amendment. I have had considerable discussions with the lower proprietors in my constituency, who are on a board that is totally dominated by the upper proprietors, who have made strenuous attempts to limit the fishing rights of the lower proprietors.

I am particularly concerned because this bill refers to water bailiffs, who, as I understand it, are appointed by district salmon fishery boards. It is ludicrous that bailiffs are expected to enforce law on the people who employ them. They are expected to inspect the boards and ensure that they comply with regulations. That is complete and utter nonsense. Any extension of the powers of water bailiffs, as proposed in the bill, will mean that the boards, which are completely inappropriate for the modern age, will have extended powers. I am looking for a reassurance from the minister that this issue will be looked at as a matter of urgency, and that the boards will be reconstituted in a modern form such that the public interest predominates in the boards rather than the rights of either the lower or upper proprietors.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Both Richard Lochhead and John Home Robertson mentioned the fact that little has happened to change the make-up of the district salmon fishery boards since Victorian times. Some measures have been taken to allow the make-up to alter, and it would have done Richard Lochhead more good if he had accepted that, but I accept the principle that the basis of the boards has remained the same. There is an element of truth in saying that the fact that there has been no rapid change until now is a measure of the success of the boards. There is a perfectly justifiable argument for that.

However, I wish to take issue with Richard Lochhead's assertion—and I am sure that the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards will be every bit as horrified as I am—that together we are part of some sort of Tory conspiracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. John Home Robertson might be surprised to learn that we in the Conservative party are not against a review of the make-up of district salmon fishery boards—far from it. As Mike Rumbles said, that issue was addressed in committee, and we are totally satisfied by the minister's assurances that the matter will be looked at. We are unable, therefore, to support the amendments.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I welcome the minister's response to my amendment. The publication of a green paper is a major new development, and it is a significant concession from the Executive that we welcome. The purpose of the new Scottish Parliament is to democratise and modernise Scotland. The district salmon fishery boards are ideal candidates for reform, which is why the SNP welcomes the proposed green paper. I ask the minister to incorporate the points that are made in my amendment into the green paper. I am delighted that the debate on my amendment has spurred the development announced by the minister. For that reason I am happy to withdraw the amendments.

Amendment 1A, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.

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

We come now to amendment 2, which is grouped with amendments 3, 11, 4 and 5. I point out that if amendment 2 is agreed to, it will pre-empt amendment 3. I invite Jamie McGrigor to move amendment 2 and speak to the others in the group.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Before I start, I will make a declaration of interest. I am part-owner of a fishing syndicate on the River Awe, a member of the Atlantic Salmon Trust, a trustee of the Awe Fisheries Trust and a member of the Awe Fishery Board.

Amendment 2 qualifies the vague and ambiguous word "otherwise" in section 10A(3)(b). It will restrict Scottish ministers' powers to make regulations, and ensure that they will not be hasty and ill thought out. In the bill as it stands, Scottish ministers can make regulations when a person or body applies to them or if they think that it is necessary. That gives Scottish ministers far too much autonomy.

Amendment 2 restricts ministers to making regulations only when a person applies to them, or in a case of extreme emergency. The amendment is vital to ensure that fisheries are not unnecessarily overburdened. The best people to manage fisheries are district salmon fishery boards—local people for local areas—and we do not want to see ministers interfering when they know little about an area, and when they may be under the influence of a pressure group, the interests of which run contrary to those of fisheries.

I would rather that other members spoke to their own amendments.

I move amendment 2.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I will speak to amendments 3 and 4, which are in my name. The purpose of amendment 3 is to clarify the bill, which has some difficulties in new section 10A(3). Ministers might make a regulation to conserve salmon, perhaps by restricting angling. If the stocks of fish recovered after some time, I do not think that it would be possible for such a regulation to be revoked, because the bill would require that to be done on the grounds of conservation. If the revocation would allow more fish to be killed, it would defeat the purpose in the bill.

I stress that—backed by the district salmon fishery boards—it is my personal view that a change is necessary as I have outlined it in amendment 3. I know that the minister has had every intention of trying to satisfy the wishes of the DSFBs. My colleague Mike Rumbles moved an amendment on the matter at stage 2, which was incorporated as new section 10A(3A). However, the difficulty is that the provision is so obscure as to require future interpretation. What we have is a difference of opinion between two sets of lawyers. Both have the same intention, but interpret the consequences of the words differently. I believe that amendment 3 would not create the situation that I described, which would be prejudicial to angling interests.

Angling is particularly important in some rural parts of Scotland. For instance, the River Tweed brings an annual income to the local community of about £14 million. We must make legislation that will stand the test of time. I have every reason to suspect that the present ministers fully understand the concerns and would never allow a situation to develop that would prejudice angling interests, but I cannot be sure that the words would not later be taken incorrectly or against their initial spirit.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

It is always nice to see—as new section 10A(3) shows—that the Liberals are as joined-up in their thinking as ever. I notice that Mr Rumbles has not objected to the removal of the subsection that his amendment, which was accepted at stage 2, inserted. Doubtless, there is good reasoning for that. The Conservatives are minded to support Euan Robson's amendments.

New section 10A(6)(a) is too widely drafted. Even in its amended state, it says merely that the information that is required must be specified and given within a set time. That means that there is no limit to the nature or frequency of the information that is requested and that proprietors will be bound by law to provide any information that is so requested. That is perfectly fair, but in these days of ever-increasing bureaucracy and form-filling—and given that the Scottish Executive forever proclaims its determination to decrease bureaucracy and form-filling—it is only right and fair that the provision should be tightened.

Amendment 5 would place a reasonable limit on the frequency with which information is requested from proprietors. We must remember that proprietors include not only large landowners, but small farmers, crofters, fishing associations and the netsmen at the mouths of the river. I am happy to speak to the amendment, which would ensure that information was requested no more than once a month. The amendment would ensure that demands were held at an acceptable level for the proprietors and allow the provision of the information that is necessary under the bill.

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

Before I call the minister, I have a point for Mr McGrigor. You spoke only to amendment 2 and did not speak to amendment 11. If you wish to do so, procedure requires that you do so now.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

As no one in fisheries management would want fishing to be prohibited, except in dire emergencies, we would like the regulations from the Scottish ministers to be unable to stop fishing at any time, except during the close season. District fishery boards already have powers to alter close seasons, which are perfectly sufficient for a local board to control the season in its catchment area. Amendment 11 would minimise the impact on the fisheries and ensure that they were not closed indefinitely, which would greatly harm the areas that depend on them and the local angling tourism.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Amendment 2 is a variation on amendment 28, which was debated at stage 2. That amendment would have allowed ministers powers to make regulations themselves only in an emergency. Amendment 2 restricts ministers' powers to make regulations in the absence of an application to situations in which

"a salmon population or fishery is severely threatened and it is necessary to do so for the conservation of salmon without delay."

In responding to a similar amendment at stage 2, I drew attention to the fact that adopting the proposal would remove the thorough consultation procedures that must precede the making of regulations in all other circumstances. Amendment 2 would not do that, but it is not clear whether the requirement to make regulations without delay would allow full and detailed consultation. As I said at stage 2, the bodies that represent owners of fishing rights and anglers sought my assurances that such consultation processes would remain in place. The meaning of "without delay" is not at all clear. Amendment 2 gives no more information than the amendment that was discussed at stage 2 on who exercises the judgment to declare an emergency and on the criteria on which the judgment would be based.

I will now deal with the availability of powers for Scottish ministers to make regulations when no board has made an application. As I advised the Rural Affairs Committee at stage 1 and again at stage 2, it is important to remember that it is essential that ministers have the power to initiate measures when, for any reason, a board is not prepared to make an application. Many boards do excellent work, but some could do more. What are we to do if such boards decide, in the face of evidence that measures are required, to do nothing? In other cases, boards may find it difficult to secure agreement to apply for restrictions. That is when ministers can step in.

As I told the Rural Affairs Committee, ministers need to have such powers for other important reasons. In some parts of the country, no district salmon fishery boards have been formed, but alternative fishery management structures exist. The River Clyde Fisheries Management Trust is a partnership of 17 angling clubs. If the Clyde wants to implement conservation measures, it will present its case to ministers. Why should it be denied access to what it needs to manage that important recreational fishery, which is enjoyed by thousands of central belt anglers, simply because there is no district salmon fishery board?

It is also appropriate for ministers to make regulations in other instances, even if there were no dire emergency. For example, the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards asked for the bill to include provision to ban the sale of rod-caught salmon. If we were forced to rely on applications to make regulations, we would have to make 52 sets of regulations—and parts of the country would still remain uncovered. The provisions that allow boards to seek information will mean that Scotland-wide regulations must be made.

It is clear that we need back-up powers to step in when salmon are under threat, and we need powers to apply regulations throughout Scotland. Full consultation will be part of the process. I give the reassurance that ministers' powers will be used very rarely. Nevertheless, I know that they are needed. I hope that Mr McGrigor will feel able to withdraw amendment 2.

Amendment 3 concerns an issue that has been raised in a couple of forms during the bill's passage through Parliament. I have some sympathy with it. As a consequence, to reach some compromise, I accepted an associated amendment that Mike Rumbles lodged at stage 2. I understand that those with an interest—particularly the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards—continue to have concerns, which they outlined in a letter to me on 28 December. I subsequently met a delegation to hear its members' concerns at first hand, but I am afraid that what they propose, and what Euan Robson seeks to do with the amendment, would change the bill's focus.

I looked carefully at Euan Robson's amendment, but it does not achieve the primary focus of the bill, which should be on conservation and not purely on the management of fisheries. I have made it clear on a number of occasions—and it is worth repeating—that in order to protect the fisheries, we must first protect the fish. Without fish, there can be no fisheries. I have given full and detailed consideration to this issue, to the point where I have compromised and accepted an amendment to the original drafting of the bill. I therefore ask Euan Robson not to move amendment 3.

On amendment 11, Jamie McGrigor has commented throughout on the implications for the business of salmon fishing where exploitation may be restricted. The amendment clearly seeks to minimise the amount of disruption, by calling for any prohibition on fishing to be restricted to that which takes place during the close season. However, it is not clear what he means by close season. The salmon fisheries legislation refers to weekly and annual close times. Within the weekly and annual close times there are periods when it is permitted to fish for salmon by rod and line. It may be, however, that the amendment refers only to the annual close time and the period within that when angling is permitted.

Assuming that that is the case, and setting aside the problem with the wording, the amendment would pose severe problems for fishery managers. We all know that each river is different and that the salmon they support are different. However, the situation is even more complicated than that. Each river may support many populations of salmon, each of which return at different times throughout the year. The amendment could prevent managers from providing protection to especially vulnerable stock components, simply because they did not return during the annual close time.

No one is considering the closure of fisheries. The aim is to ensure that fisheries are maintained. What would happen if a particular stock component required the ultimate protection: no fishing? If those fish happened to return during the period when netting is permitted, the amendment would prevent the prohibition of fishing for them, either by nets or rods. I urge Jamie McGrigor not to move amendment 11. Not only is the drafting deficient, but it places unnecessary and possibly dangerous restrictions on the ability of managers to manage their resource.

Amendment 4 seeks to remove the amendment lodged by Mike Rumbles at stage 2, which provides the linkage between conservation and management. That linkage has been subjected to detailed scrutiny throughout the passage of the bill; Mike Rumbles's amendment was accepted by the Rural Affairs Committee as clarifying that conservation and management are in no way incompatible. The focus of the bill is on the conservation of fish, so that there will be sustainable fisheries. I must repeat that Mike Rumbles's stage 2 amendment has ensured that regulations made for conservation but which involve the management of salmon fisheries will serve the best interests of both fish and fisheries. I therefore urge Euan Robson not to move amendment 4.

As I said in the stage 2 debate with regard to the intervals at which information of the type specified here should be provided, I can understand Alex Fergusson's desire, as expressed in amendment 5, to limit the burden placed on proprietors. Nobody likes to fill in endless return forms, but rational management requires information—not too much, but enough and of the right type—to let managers develop sound proposals. The level of detail indicating how often information should be supplied is a matter more properly dealt with in the appropriate regulation, rather than on the face of the bill, which merely provides the enabling power to make regulations. As with all regulations, full consultation will be necessary, and the burden on proprietors will be one of the factors that will have to be taken into account. I hope that Mr Fergusson will be prepared not to move amendment 5.

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

The principal problem here is that section 10A(3) confers on Scottish ministers the widest possible powers, which are almost entirely unfettered. It provides that the Scottish ministers

"shall have power to make regulations . . . if they consider that it is necessary or expedient to do so for the conservation of salmon."

The objection in principle is that the wide drafting of those powers is unacceptable.

I am mildly reassured by the fact that we are no longer watching a Government, but an Executive; while we may worry about Governments abusing the massive powers that they possess, we know that Executives do not possess sufficient powers for us to be concerned about such abuse.

We are aware that Mr Andrew Wallace, the director of the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, and a plethora of the landowners to whom Alex Fergusson referred, have been involved in a late lobbying exercise. The fact that, at this late stage, there are issues of such substance and such real concerns—which have been raised by many members in the debate—about the technical drafting of the bill illustrates that the procedure that is being pursued in it cannot be said to be beyond criticism. We should not find ourselves in this position—we should have better drafting.

The minister's response to amendment 2 is that it is necessary for ministers to have unfettered power; it is a case of "Trust me, we're the Executive. We will not abuse those powers because we will use them only in extremis—in an emergency." Mr McGrigor, not unreasonably, says, "Well, if that is your argument, why not write it into the bill?" We are not unsympathetic to that argument.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Mr Ewing keeps talking about the "unfettered power" of ministers. Surely he understands that ministers are subject to scrutiny by the Parliament and that any order introduced under the bill would be subject to approval by the Parliament. Will he stop using the word unfettered, as it does not make any sense and is inaccurate?

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

It is touching to hear that a former minister, who is unfettered by the responsibilities of current ministers, has such faith in current ministers. If he really believes that that is a satisfactory answer to whether ministers should have such wide-ranging powers, I can only say that I disagree with him in principle. Statutory instruments should not be so unfettered. The role of primary legislation is to set out the principles; the role of statutory instruments is to set out the detail.

Amendment 2 is defective because Mr McGrigor uses the phrase "severely threatened". Surely powers are justified when salmon stocks are threatened, not just when they are severely threatened. The minister apparently agrees, although she did not mention that particular argument. The phrase "without delay" should be defined. We will not support amendment 2, although we believe that it is well intentioned. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves here; quite frankly, it might be better if we went back to a stage 2 debate on the issue.

Mr Robson said that should an order be made that closes a river in Scotland so that salmon cannot be fished for for five years, there should be absolute certainty that if stocks recover and the bill becomes law, it will permit the revocation of that order. If that is not the case, not only lairds, but every fisherman who fishes for salmon in Scotland, will be prejudiced. I see Mr Robson nodding in support. I urge him to move—and press—amendment 3. If he does, the Scottish National Party will be behind him.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I shall speak to amendment 4. It is important that all members in the chamber are aware of the background. Right through stage 1 and stage 2, it was felt that the Executive's drafting of the bill over-emphasised the conservation of salmon. It was argued that the bill ignored the management of the fisheries on our salmon rivers.

The minister accepted a compromise at stage 2. Amendment 4 would remove that compromise, which would be a retrograde step. Euan Robson's criticism is that section 10A(3A) is not in the clearest language—he said that it is possible that it is obscure. I am on my feet now to make absolutely certain that there is no doubt at all about the wording inserted by my amendment, which was accepted unanimously—I remind members of that fact—by the Rural Affairs Committee when we considered it at stage 2. I hope that Fergus Ewing heard that.

Section 10A(3A), which was inserted during stage 2 by my amendment 1, states that the regulations

"also have effect in relation to the management of salmon fisheries for exploitation."

I believe that the minister is correct to say that amendments 3 and 4 would shift the emphasis of the bill to simply conserving salmon as a basis for sustainable exploitation.

Everybody has the same intention: to conserve salmon. When the salmon are back in our rivers to a reasonable level, there should be no restrictions at all on the effective management and exploitation of our rivers for salmon. Everybody is agreed on the purpose. The only problem is that some people feel that there is a difference of legal opinion on the amendment in my name that was accepted at stage 2. It is important that we are absolutely clear about the intention. Any interpretation of my stage 2 amendment must be absolutely clear and I hope that I have made it so.

I have to say that it is a little bit rich for Fergus Ewing to make the statements that he has just made, as section 10A(3A) was before him for scrutiny at stage 2 and he supported it.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I have no interests to declare in salmon conservation other than having three important salmon fishing rivers in my constituency.

I want to return the debate to reality—having been prompted to speak by Fergus Ewing's rather extreme remarks.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Unfettered remarks!

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I think that unfettered remarks is a very good description of them. Let us get back to what we were talking about. We were talking about ministers making regulations. We should remind ourselves that, in doing so, ministers must

"have regard to any representations made to them by any person having an interest in fishing for or taking salmon, or in the environment."

Ministers will not just sit there, writing regulations and passing them with reference to nobody; they have to refer to local people. There seems to be a perception that ministers will have nothing better to do than fiddle around in the fishery interests of various Scottish rivers for no reason, or that district salmon fishery boards will require fisheries to give them daily information updates. That is unrealistic.

Members of Parliament are elected to do a job of work for our constituents. If a regulatory order is proposed for a fishery in my constituency, ministers will make that regulatory order, it will be placed before the Rural Development Committee and before Parliament, and it will be my job to ensure that it has been subject to proper consultation. That is why we are here, and I feel that the political point scoring that we have heard this morning is irrelevant to what we are discussing.

I back up what Mike Rumbles said about amendments 3 and 4. His amendment was unanimously accepted by the Rural Affairs Committee at stage 2. At the time, Euan Robson withdrew his amendment and said that he might revisit it later. However, the unanimous opinion of the Rural Affairs Committee was that that amendment—amendment 12—would give rise to what Rhona Brankin described as "unnecessary duplication" and would place exploitation interests above those of conservation. That was not the balance that we felt was appropriate.

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

I call Jamie McGrigor to respond and to indicate whether he wants to press amendment 2 to a division.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

All the amendments in this group are designed to improve the bill and I would be disappointed if any of them was withdrawn or not moved.

The Conservatives like amendment 3, because it clarifies what the purpose of the regulations made by Scottish ministers would be. We need practical proposals that marry conservation and sustainability and we do not want fisheries to be closed down unnecessarily. Euan Robson's stage 2 amendment was good because it explained what Mike Rumbles's stage 2 amendment, which most people did not understand, meant.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Is Mr MrGrigor saying that everybody who was present at the Rural Affairs Committee meeting at which Mike Rumbles's amendment was agreed to—including Richard Lochhead, Alex Fergusson and other colleagues—did not understand what was going on?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am not suggesting that. I am saying that most people said afterwards that they did not understand what his amendment meant. Mr Robson's amendments clarify matters, which is a good thing.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Jamie McGrigor said that people did not understand my stage 2 amendment, to which everyone on the Rural Affairs Committee agreed. I want to be sure that Jamie himself understands it. The purpose of that amendment—now in the bill as section 10A(3A)—is that the regulations shall

"have effect in relation to the management of salmon fisheries for exploitation"

in addition to conservation. Does Mr McGrigor accept that all committee members were happy with that amendment at stage 2, when it was considered carefully? In fact, the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards is keen that the purpose of that amendment should be included in the bill.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I accept that the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards is keen on that, and I agree with it, but members preferred Mr Robson's amendment to Mr Rumbles's because they thought it was clearer. That is the point that I am making.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Who thought it was clearer?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Members of the committee.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

What committee?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The committee that was called the Rural Affairs Committee and which is now called the Rural Development Committee.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Could Mr McGrigor clarify which committee, sitting where, composed of whom and at what time agreed to Euan Robson's amendment?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The committee did not agree to Euan Robson's amendment at stage 2 because it had already agreed to Mike Rumbles's amendment.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Euan Robson withdrew his amendment.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Members could not agree to Euan Robson's amendment because he withdrew it.

I think that we are getting on to a red herring here— [Interruption.]

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

Order. Please proceed, Mr McGrigor.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The purpose of amendments 2 and 11 is to ensure that there are local controls rather than what Fergus Ewing referred to as unfettered power, which is what the bill is about. It is not about conservation, but about management. It gives the Scottish Executive unfettered power, which is not required anywhere else in the UK, to do exactly what it likes. That is what amendments 2 and 11 are intended to curb.

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

If amendment 2 is agreed to, amendment 3 is pre-empted. The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

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

There will be a division.

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

The result of the division is: For 13, Against 84, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 disagreed to.

Amendment 3 moved—[Euan Robson].

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

The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are members agreed?

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

There will be a division.

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

The result of the division is: For 38, Against 56, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 3 disagreed to.

Amendment 11 moved—[Mr Jamie McGrigor].

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

The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are members agreed?

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

There will be a division.

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

The result of the division is: For 14, Against 83, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 11 disagreed to.

Amendment 4 not moved.

Amendment 5 moved—[Alex Fergusson].

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

The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are members agreed?

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

There will be a division.

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

The result of the division is: For 14, Against 83, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 5 disagreed to.

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

We now move to amendment 6.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I should have declared an interest at the start of my previous contribution: I am a River Tweed commissioner. I have declared the interest on previous occasions and apologise for the omission.

The purpose of amendment 6 is to draw attention to the fact that a lot of work is being done in various places to conserve riparian habitat. Such conservation can take several forms, such as the fencing of riverbanks, reafforestation of certain areas, withdrawal of forestry from riverbanks and the unblocking of obstructions to migratory fish. However, there are parts of Scotland where little habitat improvement is taking place.

Studies show that habitat improvement can do more for salmon conservation than many other types of measure. If the in-river habitat for fish, in particular small fish, is improved, more fish will be sent to sea as smolts and more will return to the river. In a number of places, in particular on the River Tweed, improvements to habitat have been shown to have brought about a tremendous recovery in fish stocks. Spring fish in particular in the River Tweed have been helped by a major programme of habitat improvement.

The bill currently says nothing about direct habitat improvement. The purpose of amendment 6 is to allow Scottish ministers to intervene in certain circumstances if no habitat improvement is taking place. Clearly, it would be unwise and unwelcome if ministers intervened when work was well in hand—there are many places where work is progressing dramatically and effectively—but there are some areas where little is being done. The scope of this amendment is reduced compared with the scope of the amendment that was introduced at the Rural Affairs Committee, some of the definitions in which members had some difficulty with.

As a useful start to a wider habitat improvement programme, I thought it desirable that Scottish ministers should have a specific power to tackle recalcitrant district salmon fishery boards that are doing little towards habitat improvement. That is the limit of the power proposed by amendment 6—it simply requires boards to produce a plan or plans for habitat improvement.

Some members have raised with me the question of funding. I have deliberately omitted any reference to the funding of habitat improvement plans for the simple reason that improvements can be achieved in a number of manners—through voluntary effort, through the efforts of proprietors and angling clubs, by application to the lottery or through some form of public funding. The funding is not the point; the point of amendment 6 is to allow ministers to intervene for the production of a plan and to stimulate activity in areas where there is none. The amendment proposes a simple, straightforward and fairly limited measure, but will inject into the bill a direct conservation element, which would be welcome.

I move amendment 6.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Amendment 6 is a slightly amended version of the amendment that Euan Robson lodged at stage 2. It seeks to provide regulations that would require the production of plans to improve river and riparian habitats.

As I made clear at stage 2, checks and balances on the ability of boards to introduce regulations are already in place under existing legislation. As I repeated to the Rural Affairs Committee and to Parliament, the bill inserts sections into the Salmon Act 1986. Where any regulations that stem from those insertions are to be introduced, a case will have to be made. That is true whether there is an application by a board, or two proprietors, or a proposal by ministers.

I understand that the Scottish fisheries co-ordination centre requires its members, some of whom are district salmon fishery boards, to collect habitat data to common standards around Scotland.

While I welcome the positive nature of amendment 6, I am not at all sure that all district salmon fishery boards have the resources or the expertise to carry the requirement through. I understand and appreciate that many boards, including the one for the Tweed, where Mr Robson is closely involved as a Tweed commissioner, undertake to produce such plans, but I am reluctant to make that a statutory requirement and I trust that Mr Robson will feel able to withdraw amendment 6.

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

As Rhona Brankin said, this amendment has been altered—I would say radically—since we debated the thrust of the idea at stage 2. It is fair to say—perhaps Mr Robson will concede this—that the previous version was defective for technical reasons. The debate therefore focused on the technical objections rather than the merit of the idea behind the amendment.

The SNP agrees that while the amendment is of limited benefit it is nonetheless a useful possible method of conserving salmon. We therefore feel that it should be supported. The minister said that a reason for voting against amendment 6 is that some district boards would not have the resources to produce a plan. That is a fair point, but the amendment does not require every board to produce a plan; it says that ministers may require the production of a plan, so that point would be taken into account.

Reference has been made to the fact that information about habitats is already provided in certain circumstances. It does not seem to be too onerous a requirement that the information should be provided anew in another form.

For those reasons, we recommend support for this worthy, albeit limited, amendment.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

A great deal has already been done by the seven west coast fishery trusts to connect their work on this matter with that done by the boards. The Tweed Foundation has also done a lot of work on it.

The Conservatives agree with this amendment; it is proactive and an obvious conservation measure. It must be remembered that the financial aspect could be onerous for the smaller boards, but if they exist they should carry out such measures.

The Executive should consider boards in conjunction with grants that are given to farmers for water margin improvements under the countryside premium scheme, as those tie in with a great deal of what boards would like to do for habitat improvement. That could be examined in a more holistic way—if I dare use that phrase.

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

I ask Euan Robson to wind up and indicate whether he is pressing the amendment.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I welcome the support of other members, but I have to say that, on reflection, this amendment is too limited. The debate has focused attention on the matter and we ought to return to it at a later date. The amendment is limited because I had to reduce its scope for this occasion. I much preferred the scope of the earlier version, because there are places in Scotland where there is no district salmon fishery board. Perhaps the need for a conservation programme is greatest in those places.

The issue could be returned to at a later date, perhaps in the green paper that the minister mentioned earlier or through other measures.

I seek leave to withdraw amendment 6.

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

Mr Robson seeks leave to withdraw the amendment. Does any member object?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Yes.

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

Did I hear an objection?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Yes. It is a very good amendment.

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

In that case, there will be a division. The question is, that amendment 6, in the name of Euan Robson, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

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

There will be a division.

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

The result of the division is: For 40, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 6 disagreed to.

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

We move to amendment 7, in the name of Alex Fergusson, which is grouped with amendment 10.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

All the evidence that we received as a committee—I think that I am right in saying that every organisation that gave evidence referred to its concerns about this matter—and a considerable amount of representation that I, and I am sure other members, have received demonstrates the concern about time limitation for regulations laid under the bill. Despite that, the bill lacks any commitment on that.

During the stage 1 debate, Rhona Brankin said:

"Whether regulations controlling exploitation are made in response to an application or on the ministers' initiative, the intention is to make them time-limited."—[Official Report, 23 November 2000; Vol 9, c 7.]

I am sure that I do not need to remind the minister which road was paved with good intentions. In this instance, good intentions and promises are not enough. A firm, robust intention should be included in the bill.

My amendment demands such a commitment to time limitation, but I believe that it does considerably more than that. If we are striving, as the bill purports to, for the conservation of salmon, we must recognise that all regulations should be subject to frequent review. It therefore makes sense that time limitation should go hand in hand with regular review; that is what my amendment seeks to achieve. It ensures that each regulation laid under the act would specify a period for which the regulation would remain in force. It places no limit on that period, but ensures that the issue would be revisited annually to make certain that the regulation was still relevant. That is a logical part of a monitoring process. I fail to understand why there would be any difficulty in implementing such a logical step.

The Executive has rightly stated that this is an enabling bill, which is part of a much larger picture. However, rather than being burdensome, annual reviews should be seen as part of an on-going process that would help to create effective measures in the conservation of salmon. My amendment addresses time limitation and demands that the regulations remain alive during that time to ensure that the conservation of salmon is an on-going and successful process.

My colleague, Jamie McGrigor, lodged the other amendment in the group, amendment 10. I hope that members have noticed that, as always, the Scottish Conservatives seek to provide a balance and give a choice on time limitation. [Interruption.] I see that there is general approval from members, for which I am grateful.

I believe that my amendment 7 is an improvement on Jamie McGrigor's amendment 10, in that it offers a continual review, which I believe would be important for the proper implementation of the regulations. My colleague's amendment 10, which will fall when mine is accepted, offers a softer choice. I accept that the five-year limitation is part of the life-cycle of the salmon, so I see its logic. None the less, I commend my amendment to the chamber.

I move amendment 7.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

My reason for suggesting that regulations should not remain in force for more than five years is that a period of five years covers the life-cycle of the salmon from egg to adult. Experiments can therefore be completed within that time scale. However, I have much sympathy with my colleague Alex Fergusson's amendment 7, which requires that the regulations be reviewed every year. Indefinite regulations would be enormously damaging to the management of salmon and sea trout fishing and to those whose livelihoods depend on income from angling tourism.

In the salmon world, things can change rapidly, as shown by the dramatic increase of runs of salmon in some Scottish rivers last year. Local variations in salmon runs mean that blanket measures, such as those in England, would not be appropriate. Every fishing body that I know of has asked for time limitation. It is incredibly important that it be included in the bill.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Alex Fergusson's amendment 7 seeks to ensure that the bill states that regulations must be time-limited and subject to annual review. Although I appreciate that the amendment is well intentioned, it would require all regulations to be time-limited. In some cases, that might be inappropriate—for example, in cases that require information to be provided. As I advised the Rural Affairs Committee at stage 2, new section 10D(2)(a) already provides for time limitation if appropriate. In addition, any regulations made under the bill, as with those made under all acts of the Scottish Parliament, may be revoked, amended or re-enacted. All regulations made under the bill may be time-limited. That was made absolutely clear at stage 2. It will be for the details of any proposed regulations to determine what the optimum time will be for keeping in place any conservation measures imposed by those regulations. The details will, of course, be subject to rigorous local consultation before the regulations are made.

As for reviews, I expect that applicants will be the first to check the effects of their conservation measures on salmon stocks and fisheries. They, and not Scottish ministers, are surely best placed to know when the time is right for reviewing regulations in the light of evidence suggesting that certain measures may no longer be required. We would assist in that process through the provision of scientific support to river managers from our scientists at the freshwater fisheries laboratory. I trust that Alex Fergusson will feel able to withdraw amendment 7.

As I said, new section 10D(2)(a) provides for time limitation and, in addition, any regulation made under the bill, as with those made under any act of the Scottish Parliament, may be revoked, amended or re-enacted. As for details of the time during which a regulation should remain in force, it must be borne in mind that, when a regulation is to be made, whether by application or by ministers, full consultation is necessary. The proposal must be described and statements provided on why the proposal is necessary or expedient and on its general effect.

Different regulations may require to be in force for different periods; such details should be dealt with in the regulations. Boards would want some regulations, such as the collection of catch statistics, to remain in force for longer than five years. The value of such information increases as the data set grows.

Inserting a reference to time limitation in the bill in the way that amendment 10 proposes makes for a highly prescriptive regulation-making power, when the object of the bill is to provide as much flexibility for fishery managers as possible. The bill allows for time limitation. Managers can make a case for the time limits that they want when they make their applications, and ministers will have to justify the time limits that they want during the necessary consultation. Amendment 10 is not necessary and fishery managers would find it restrictive rather than helpful.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

rose—

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am sorry—I have finished. I urge Jamie McGrigor not to press his amendment.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The minister has covered many of the arguments that I intended to make in opposing amendments 7 and 10. Time limitation has been a difficult issue for the Parliament, but the minister has pointed out that the bill allows a time limit to be put on regulations. In most cases, that ability should perhaps be used.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I fully accept that the bill allows for the introduction of time limitations, but is the Scottish National Party happy that the intention of the minister is good enough? Personally, I would accept any intention of the present minister; however, she will not remain in this particular post for ever. Is Mr Lochhead happy to say that a good intention is good enough? A good intention is all that is in the bill.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Mr Fergusson accepts that the current minister will keep to the intention; I can assure him that that will also be the case when there is an SNP minister.

Some regulations should not be time limited. We do not want to be in a position where, for example, regulations on information that has to be collected annually have to come to the Parliament annually and we have to have an annual consultation process. That would not be practicable. The first half of Alex Fergusson's amendment 7 is fine, but the second half gives the SNP a problem.

Jamie McGrigor talked about a three-year period during the stage 1 debate on the bill, but his amendment 10 refers to a five-year period. There is no consistency.

Both amendments are flawed, and we will oppose them.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I listened to the minister with great interest. I do not disagree with what she said. However, I repeat that I do not believe that good intentions are enough in this case.

In response to Richard Lochhead, I would say that I have not asked for things to be brought to the Parliament annually. I have simply asked that each regulation be reviewed annually to ensure that it is still relevant to the conservation of salmon. I introduced an amendment at stage 2 to that effect, but I altered it in recognition of the difficulties that might have been involved.

I really believe that amendment 7 will greatly strengthen the bill. Any bill that is passed on the conservation of salmon must be as strong and robust as possible. My amendment would ensure that that is so.

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

The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

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

There will be a division.

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

The result of the division is: For 16, Against 84, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 7 disagreed to.

Amendment 10 moved—[Mr Jamie McGrigor.]

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

The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

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

There will be a division.

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

The result of the division is: For 15, Against 80, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 10 disagreed to.

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

We move to amendment 12, in the name of Rhona Brankin, which is grouped with amendment 13.

I must point out to members that if amendment 12 is agreed to, amendment 13 is pre-empted and will not be called.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

In the various debates on the bill, I have heard concerns that where proposed regulations are introduced on the initiative of ministers, affected district salmon fishery boards might not be consulted. I have given the assurance that it is inconceivable that boards would not be consulted and repeat that assurance today.

During the stage 2 debate, Mike Rumbles lodged an amendment that made specific reference to boards in the consultation provisions that apply where ministers propose regulations without an application from a board. However, there were technical difficulties with the drafting of that amendment which meant that its effect on the existing consultation regime was unclear. However, I was aware of the level of concern and undertook to consider the possibility of introducing an Executive amendment to address the matter.

As a result, Mike was gracious enough to withdraw his amendment.

I have carefully considered the matter and have decided that it would be appropriate for an Executive amendment to be lodged to introduce express reference to boards into the existing consultation regime. That regime is set out in paragraph 3 of schedule 1 to the Salmon Act 1986 which provides that the Scottish ministers shall consult such "persons" as they consider appropriate. The amendment makes it clear that the word "persons" shall be construed as including, in particular, such district salmon fishery boards as the ministers consider appropriate for regulations. Ministers will have to consider the district or districts affected by any particular proposed regulations. Clearly, where there is no board for an affected district, none can be consulted; however, where there is a board in an affected district, it will be appropriate to consult that board.

I move amendment 12.

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

I call Alex Fergusson to speak to amendment 13.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We have all heard that the conservation of salmon is a national issue. However, as we have been told time after time in committee and during today's proceedings, the issue is often best addressed at local level. I believe that strongly, and my experience tells me that that belief is absolutely correct.

The Executive lodged amendment 12 in response to representations made—understandably—by the ASFB. It was forecast in evidence at Tuesday's Subordinate Legislation Committee meeting, at which a Scottish Executive rural afffairs department official stated:

"The minister listened carefully to the representations that were made at the second stage 2 meeting of the Rural Affairs Committee. Yesterday, she indicated to the association that she is minded to lodge an amendment for Thursday's stage 3 debate"—

that is, the amendment that she has just moved—

"to cover that point and to reassure the association that whenever it is proposed to introduce a regulation, the minister will consult the district salmon fishery boards."—[Official Report, Subordinate Legislation Committee, 9 January 2001; c 394-95.]

That is an absolutely solid commitment that, whenever a regulation is laid, the appropriate river board will be consulted.

However, my difficulty is that such a commitment is not made in the minister's amendment. Despite her reassurances, the amendment does not commit the Executive to consult the river boards. In fact, it contains an escape clause, and I do not think that good and robust law should allow such a way out. The issue should be clear cut in the bill in a way that leaves no room for doubt. My amendment 13 removes any such doubt by committing the Executive to consult the relevant district salmon fishery boards—where they exist—and allows for wider consultation whether or not a board exists. Everyone agrees that local involvement is essential; my amendment guarantees such involvement.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

True to her word, the minister has introduced this amendment at stage 3. She said in the stage 2 debate that she would do so if I withdrew my amendment and I am absolutely delighted to see that that has happened.

Consultation with district salmon fishery boards is the second of the two main themes that caused committee members some disquiet—the first was tying in conservation and river management. In committee and again just now in the chamber, the minister has given an absolute guarantee that those consultations will take place. I see Alex Fergusson shaking his head—however, the minister has clearly given that guarantee. I am pleased that the minister has introduced her amendment 12, which the Liberal Democrats will support.

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

The minister's amendment 12 provides a statutory undertaking and declaration that the persons to be consulted shall include

"such district salmon fishery boards as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate".

Alex Fergusson's amendment 13 specifically states that the board to be consulted is the one "which would be affected". Surely it is a matter of simple logic that any consultation on a proposed regulation should be undertaken with the board that would be affected by the regulation. For that reason alone, it is a simple proposition of elementary logic that Alex Fergusson's amendment be preferred.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I should point out that when I lodged a very similar amendment at stage 2, Fergus Ewing did not support it. We again see him supporting certain amendments at stage 3 that he opposed at stage 2. Being caught out a second time doing something at stage 2 and the opposite at stage 3 does not do his credibility one jot of good.

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The amendment that Mike Rumbles is talking about was not this particular amendment—it was another one.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I want to reiterate Fergus Ewing's comments. The minister's amendment 12 will give the Scottish ministers total control over who would be consulted on proposed regulations. That gives too much power to the Scottish Executive and does not restrict it in any way whatever. The amendment does not force the Executive to consult anyone it does not wish to, which could lead to an extremely biased consultation process.

On the contrary, Alex Fergusson's amendment 13 requires the Scottish ministers to consult any district salmon fishery board affected by the regulations as well as anyone else considered appropriate. That would ensure that the Scottish ministers actually consulted the board involved. That is very important as that particular board will be the most affected; as it will know its own area and will have a broad base of membership, it will be able to ensure a reasoned response.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Under the existing provisions, ministers are required to consult a board affected by proposed regulations. My amendment 12 introduces an explicit reference to boards in the existing consultation regime applied by the bill, in the situation where ministers act on their own initiative.

Although I understand the intention behind the wording of amendment 13, my amendment sits more squarely with the consultation regime set out in schedule 1 to the Salmon Act 1986. For that reason, I hope that Alex Fergusson will not press his amendment.

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

I remind members that, if amendment 12 is agreed to, amendment 13 is pre-empted. The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

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

There will be a division.

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

The result of the division is: For 59, Against 41, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

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

I call Fergus Ewing to speak to and move amendment 14, which is grouped on its own.

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

The purpose of the bill is to conserve salmon. At stage 1, the minister pointed out that salmon stocks in Scotland

"have declined to an all-time low".

She added:

"The bottom line is that fewer fish are surviving the marine phase of their life."—[Official Report, 23 November 2000; Vol 9, c 334.]

That point was made by virtually all the consultees in the bill process and by every witness who gave oral evidence to the Rural Affairs Committee. The minister highlighted the gravity of the situation when she quoted statistics that show that, in

"1960, 1,443 tonnes of wild salmon was caught in Scotland"—[Official Report, Rural Affairs Committee, 7 November 2000; c 1289.]

and that, by last year, that figure had been reduced to 198 tonnes: a reduction of 85 per cent. It would seem—to use Jamie McGrigor's phrase—that salmon is already under threat, if not severe threat, in Scotland. The same can be said of trout, as there has been an 86 per cent decline in trout catches over the same four decades. Those are massive reductions, which highlight the scale of the problem that we face.

Amendment 14 seeks to address what all the witnesses agreed was the bill's main task: the conservation of salmon against the threats that are posed to them during their marine phase. The amendment was debated at stage 2, and the minister gave two responses. Her first response was that

"the bill is about conservation of salmon in the freshwater phase".—[Official Report, Rural Affairs Committee, 12 December 2000; c 1544.]

However, I have the benefit of having read a letter to which the minister has referred, from Mr Andrew Wallace. In paragraph 7 of that letter, Mr Wallace points out that, although the bill will cover the whole land mass of Scotland,

"it is clear from the 1986 Act that the new sections 10A-10E will extend to 'Scotland' which, as is usual in our legislation, includes its territorial sea."

I invite the minister to comment on whether the bill will cover the marine phase of salmon, contrary to the impression that was given at stages 1 and 2 of the debate.

Amendment 14 proposes the establishment of a body that will consider all the numerous threats to salmon, including predators, threats to habitat, environmental concerns, drift-netting off the north-east of England and the potential threat of sea lice, about which there has been great controversy following the broadcast of a BBC documentary programme. Irrespective of the success of the amendment, I hope that the minister will call for what is sought by all those who are involved, no matter what their political views—that is, an independent inquiry into the potential threat that fish farming may pose to wild salmon stocks.

The purpose of the body that is proposed by amendment 14 is to ensure that the advice that all political parties feel is necessary for the production of an action plan is obtained. Why is it necessary for such a body to be convened if, as the minister pointed out at stage 2, there are already numerous bodies that provide advice? I refer to the minister's comments at stage 2, when she named the bodies that are involved: the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, the Fisheries Research Services, the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency, the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, the Natural Environment Research Council and various others. Those bodies are all having different cycles of meetings and saying different things to different groups of people, rather than uniting to address what everyone acknowledges is an extremely serious problem. That is not good enough. Given that Scottish salmon are nearly facing extinction, it is time to address that problem.

I hope that, if the minister does not agree to amendment 14, she will say whether the Executive is planning any steps to tackle the acknowledged threats to salmon in their marine phase. If not, there will be a striking similarity between the Government ministers—with regard to the marine phase of the salmon—and King Canute in his marine phase, some years ago.

I move amendment 14.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

This issue was raised by Mr Ewing and debated at stage 2, when he said that he might lodge the amendment again at stage 3. The amendment seeks to establish a commission to advise ministers on the causes of freshwater and marine mortality.

As I said in the stage 2 debate, it is not clear what benefit would be gained from establishing such a commission, as the tasks that it would be given are already being carried out. We receive advice on such issues from Fisheries Research Services, from the freshwater fisheries laboratory in Pitlochry and the marine laboratory in Aberdeen. There is close co-operation between our FRS scientists and local fisheries biologists, and a Scottish fisheries co-ordination centre has been established at the freshwater fisheries laboratory. That initiative has allowed the development of means to gather information from around Scotland, which is collected to common standards.

Ministers receive advice on seal populations from the Natural Environment Research Council, which is the statutory advisory body on the status of seal populations and their management. Specialist advice on the effects of predation by birds, such as saw-bill ducks and cormorants, is received from Fisheries Research Services and the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency.

As I have pointed out before, the remit of a Scottish commission would be too narrow. The problems that salmon face are not confined to Scotland, but are to be seen in all the salmon-producing countries around the north Atlantic. Our scientists work in the international arena, sharing and developing knowledge with fellow experts from other countries that are affected by the decline in salmon stocks. The advice that was received earlier this year from the ICES advisory committee on fisheries management, on management of the southern European salmon stock complex—our salmon are included in that group—was that, for one-sea winter salmon and multi-sea winter salmon, reductions in exploitation rates are required for as many stocks as possible.

Oceanographers and marine biologists at the marine laboratory in Aberdeen are considering the implications for fish, including salmon, of changes in the north Atlantic and the North sea. They are not working alone, but in collaboration with scientists from many other countries.

Amendment 14 goes beyond the scope of the bill, but addresses proposals that are being addressed actively in any case. I hope that Mr Ewing is reassured and convinced that the tasks are being undertaken elsewhere, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

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

rose—

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

The minister has sat down, Mr Ewing.

We now move to open debate on amendment 14.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Having caught Fergus Ewing changing his mind between stage 2 and stage 3 on two occasions this morning, I admit that he is quite consistent on this amendment. At stage 2, he made the same argument, which was rejected by the Rural Affairs Committee. I hope that the Parliament will also reject his argument this morning.

I am surprised by Fergus Ewing's enthusiasm for the establishment of a new quango. The proper place for considering whether to hold an investigation into the fish farming industry is the Rural Development Committee, as that committee, together with the Transport and the Environment Committee, is already paying attention to the issue. That is the route that we should go down, rather than setting up a brand new quango—a new commission—just like that.

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

rose—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Fergus Ewing usually gets it wrong and he got it majestically wrong today.

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

Are you giving way, Mr Robson—sorry, Mr Rumbles?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am Mike Rumbles, not Euan Robson.

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

Yes, but are you giving way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I have finished.

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

Mr Rumbles has finished, Mr Ewing.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The Conservatives are quite sympathetic towards Fergus Ewing's amendment, but we think that the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill is the wrong place for it.

The points contained in Mr Ewing's amendment must be debated with all the issues of fisheries management at a later date, in the context of protecting and promoting fisheries.

Has anyone read the Scottish salmon strategy task force report? That report contained a lot of recommendations, and, to be honest, I am quite surprised that the Executive does not appear to be following those recommendations. There seems to be little point in having a further commission, which would be extremely expensive, when such a report is before the Executive.

The task force report, which was completed in 1995, made a lot of excellent recommendations and cost a lot of money. There is absolutely no point in paying for another report. Why does not the Executive act on the recommendations in that report? I do not say that that report is excellent simply because I know that Lord Nickson is sitting in the VIP gallery—I say so because the then Scottish Office accepted at the time that it was an excellent report. I do not understand why its recommendations were not acted on much more positively.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

After amendment 14 is disagreed to, Mr Ewing may take some comfort from reading the annual reports of the freshwater fisheries laboratory in Pitlochry. The laboratory is doing much of the work that is encompassed in amendment 14.

I suggest to the minister that it might be sensible to give wider publicity to the excellent work of the laboratory, because it is not given due credit for all that it is achieving.

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

I listened with interest to members' comments. I regret that amendment 14 has not attracted more support and that the minister has not provided responses to the substantive points that I raised. In the circumstances, I believe that there should be a vote on my amendment.

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

The question is, that amendment 14, in the name of Fergus Ewing, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

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

There will be a division.

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

The result of the division is: For 26, Against 68, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 14 disagreed to.

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

I call Fergus Ewing to speak to and move amendment 15, which is grouped on its own.

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

Given the minister's commitment at the outset of the debate to issue a consultation, or green, paper and the fact that amendment 15, while slightly different from the amendment that I lodged at stage 2, none the less deals with the same area, which has been debated, it appears to me that we should not debate it again. I will not move amendment 15.

Amendment 15 not moved.

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

I call Richard Lochhead to speak to and move amendment 16.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Members will be delighted to learn that I take a similar view of my amendment, given that its subject matter will also be covered by the green paper that the minister announced today.

Amendment 16 not moved.

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

That concludes consideration of amendments to the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill.

Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill

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

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1502, in the name of Ross Finnie, which seeks agreement that the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill be passed, and on an amendment to that motion. I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. When you introduced stage 3 of the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill this morning, you said that the debate would be in two parts, where amendments to the bill would be taken first, following which we would move to a debate on the bill.

It is a common interpretation that once we have dealt with amendments, we move on to a discussion of the bill, as amended or not. Therefore, as a point of order, I wish to seek clarification on how, at this stage, it is competent to entertain an amendment that includes elements that could have been included quite properly at stage 2 or stage 3. How can it be competent to introduce those elements at the conclusion of that part of stage 3 in which amendments are dealt with?

I will be more specific. The elements relate to the scope of the bill. How can it be competent to entertain an amendment that deals with consolidation of legislation that is wholly and totally outwith the scope of the bill? I seek clarification from you, Presiding Officer, as to how, in such circumstances, the amendment can be competent.

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

I cannot give you an immediate explanation as I was not party to that decision, which was a decision of the Presiding Officer. I will ask the clerks to make inquiries and get back to you as soon as possible. Are you suggesting, Mr Finnie, that it is not appropriate to continue with this debate at this point?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am.

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

As this is a serious matter, if members will allow me a couple of minutes, I will consult the clerks at this stage.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. My understanding is that an amendment that we had sought to have included for debate was ruled out on precisely the grounds that the minister has just specified. If one party's amendment has been ruled out, a consistent approach should be adopted by the clerks.

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

Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. The minister contends that the reasoned amendment deals with matters that could and should have been dealt with at stage 2. That is not so. We have already heard from the minister that the points that the amendment raises could not have been within the scope of the bill.

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

Fine. Are there any other points?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. I recall that, when this matter was discussed by the Procedures Committee, we came to the view that a reasoned amendment at stage 3 was perfectly competent. A reasoned amendment, we envisaged, would be either an amendment that stated that the bill was supported because of certain reasons or in spite of certain perceived deficiencies or that the bill would be opposed for reasons that the mover of the amendment wished to highlight. It seems beyond what we envisaged that a reasoned amendment should be presented that refers to additional and extraneous matters and calls for measures that are further than the scope of the bill. The clarification is essential.

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

Thank you.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. My understanding of the discussion in the Procedures Committee, which I was party to in a previous life, was that we would discuss reasoned amendments at stage 1 rather than at stage 3.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. The amendment in the name of Fergus Ewing is a reasoned amendment. It has already been accepted by the Presiding Officer as competent. It would be wholly inappropriate for it to be withdrawn at this stage. The debate should take place now. We have accepted the Presiding Officer's judgment in the past and we should do so now.

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

My judgment is that since neither I nor the clerks beside me were party to the decision, I should seek leave of the chamber to suspend this meeting of Parliament for up to 10 minutes while I consult further. The minister has raised a matter of some substance.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. Would not it have been in order for the minister to make his point when he saw the business bulletin this morning, before the debate began?

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

This is a matter of some substance and I ask for leave to suspend the meeting for up to 10 minutes while I consult further. Is that agreed?

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

Welcome back. I should say, first, that this is an exceptional circumstance and I do not want to create a precedent for suspending while we take further advice.

My first point is that if ministers or members wish to raise matters of such substance, it would be helpful if advance notice could be given to the Presiding Officer so preparatory work can be done and we do not have to suspend, as we have this morning. I have taken the advice of the clerks, which is that the rules on the admissibility of amendments to bills are separate in the standing orders from the rules on the admissibility of amendments to motions. We are dealing with a motion.

On the advice of the clerks, the Presiding Officer was satisfied that the amendment is admissible within the rules set out in chapter 8 of the standing orders. If the amendment is agreed to and the motion as amended is agreed to, the bill is still passed without qualification.

I hope that we can move on. I should add that it is not the first occasion that questions on reasoned amendments to motions have been raised. Advice on the subject has been prepared for the Presiding Officer and he is taking it forward through the usual channels. We still have almost 50 minutes in hand. I hope we can now agree to move on.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I have the honour of proposing that Parliament passes this bill today. First, I will deal with Fergus Ewing's amendment. As I have said repeatedly, the factors that influence the mortality rate of salmon are many and varied. The bill focuses on providing means to address the factors over which we can exercise control in the areas over which this Parliament has jurisdiction. Fergus Ewing might like to be able to control the temperature in the North Atlantic; the Parliament is not able to do that. Furthermore, it does not seek to take powers that are already provided by other legislation.

The Scottish Executive, through the fisheries research services and its close association with district salmon fishery boards, fisheries trusts and the Scottish fisheries co-ordination centre, is engaged in getting as much information as possible about the salmon and the habitat in which it lives, in all phases of its life cycle. We are committed to continuing that essential research. I am also keen to see the work on consolidation progressed and am pleased to say that it is at an advanced stage.

We are debating the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill. It could not be more topical. Today marks the start of the angling season for salmon on the Thurso, the Helmsdale and the rivers that flow into the Kyle of Sutherland. Tomorrow sees the start of angling on the rivers Halladale, Hope, Naver and Strathy. Next week, on 15 January, salmon anglers will gather on the banks of the Tay and the Ness.

The wild Atlantic salmon is one of Scotland's most precious resources. We are the envy of many others who once were fortunate to have salmon in their rivers but who now bemoan its loss. Scotland remains one of the last strongholds for salmon and we must strive to maintain that position. We must continue to take our duty to protect salmon seriously. The bill is testament to our determination to do so.

The bill was introduced in late September and has benefited from intense scrutiny by many since then. I pay tribute to the efforts of the Rural Affairs Committee, which agreed to accord the bill the urgency it deserves. I pay tribute also to the assiduous manner in which those in the wild salmon world—in particular the district salmon fishery boards—have addressed what the bill means for them. After all, they sought the additional powers and I know that they are as keen as I am that those powers should be put to best effect.

We have heard at every stage of the bill that there are many factors that affect the survival of salmon. Some are understood and, regrettably, some are still not. It is all too easy to be despondent about whether answers will be delivered soon. We have here a prime example of where adoption of the precautionary approach is essential. We would not be thanked by future generations for waiting until we had found out precisely why the last salmon died.

International research into finding the causes of marine mortality continues, and we will continue to play our part in that essential work. Nevertheless, there are actions that can be taken now in our rivers and on our coasts so that more fish survive to spawn to produce future generations. We must be prepared to take such action where and when necessary, not just to preserve the salmon but to secure a viable future for wild fisheries. Wild fisheries are extremely important to the rural economy—supporting jobs, attracting tourists and providing sporting opportunities for our own people.

No one should underestimate the scale or the importance of the task of those who manage salmon fisheries. Many of our major salmon rivers have provided models for others to follow: promoting catch and release, undertaking careful re-stocking and carrying out habitat improvement works. Fishery management is all about knowing the characteristics, or perhaps the idiosyncrasies, of each river and addressing its needs accordingly. That is why the flexibility afforded by the bill matches Scotland's river-by-river management structure so well.

The bill allows regulations to be made for different rivers, different parts of rivers, different seasons, and for salmon separately from sea trout. There is nothing prescriptive in its approach; it recognises that those on the ground are best placed to know what is needed. Fishery managers will now have more scope to control exploitation. However, the onus is firmly upon them to take early advantage of their access to new powers. This is an enabling bill: with it, we are enabling better management of salmon as the first step in giving Scotland's wild fisheries the profile and support they deserve.

The bill is a first step in a much wider agenda for freshwater fisheries. The other major exercise, "Protecting and Promoting Scotland's Freshwater Fish and Fisheries", should also be seen as part of the package of proposals that I outlined earlier. I look forward to setting those out in more detail to the Parliament later this year.

I would also like to pay tribute to the bill team. Indeed, they worked late into last night because of a large number of late amendments—that was a result of the bill's rather difficult time scale. I thank the members of the team for their hard work.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill be passed.

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

I call Richard Lochhead to speak to and move amendment S1M-1502.1, in the name of Fergus Ewing.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I would like to begin by congratulating Rhona Brankin on steering through her first bill in her new ministerial role. I suspect that it was not her easiest journey. I would like to thank the clerks of the Rural Affairs Committee and the legislation team who have guided us all through the maze that is the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill. I thank all the anglers, scientists and fishery boards for the advice that they gave to the committee and to the SNP. I commend all those members who have contributed to a tricky, yet worthwhile, debate.

The fact that Parliament has considered and debated salmon fisheries so early in its life is welcome, given the sector's importance to the nation. The SNP will be voting for the bill. The fact that catch figures for salmon are at their lowest since records began in 1952 and have been in constant decline since 1973 means that we have to take action urgently. However, it is a great pity that Labour did not act sooner. After all, the party was elected in 1997 with an angler's charter that promised the world. We know that the Nickson report has been left on a shelf in St Andrew's House to gather dust for the past three years. It took international pressure to embarrass the Government into introducing even the modest bill that we are debating today.

The SNP will vote in favour of the bill, but with a great deal of reservation because the only other option is to do nothing about the crisis that is facing salmon. Anglers, environmentalists and fishery managers throughout Scotland share our reservations. The bill represents a missed opportunity to do more about marine mortality. Ministers cannot simply bury their heads in the sand for ever.

The minister need look only at the debate that is raging in relation to salmon farming and the environment to see what happens when serious issues are swept under the carpet. In the interests of salmon conservation, the minister should turn her attention to that controversial debate, which would benefit both the salmon farming industry and the freshwater fisheries sector. The Scottish Government must face up to the many other threats to Atlantic salmon that fall outwith the scope of the bill, which, as we know, addresses only part of the problem.

More proposals have to be agreed with the sector and discussed in this chamber as soon as possible, which is why amendment S1M-1502.1 makes that plea. We have to address predation of our young salmon at sea and the impact of environmental change, industrial fisheries at sea and the drift net fishery off the north of England, albeit that particular issue has at long last been tackled. Of course, we also have to examine disease among salmon at sea, for example sea lice, which have been mentioned. Those are just some of the issues that require ministers' urgent attention.

We have to democratise Scotland's salmon fisheries. We have Victorian structures that have been subjected to nothing more than cosmetic changes over the years. However, I welcome the Deputy Minister for Rural Development's significant concession that a green paper addressing those issues will be published.

We must address the complexity of salmon legislation in Scotland. It is a dog's breakfast. I am delighted that, during the debate in the past few months, the Deputy Minister for Rural Development has acknowledged that fact. Let us tidy it up as soon as possible.

Despite our reservations, the bill has benefits. Despite its narrow scope, it is a tiny step forward. More significant, the bill has, for the first time, sown the seeds of a national policy on salmon and sea trout. It also acknowledges for the first time that the Atlantic salmon is a national asset and is part of Scotland's national heritage. It is a duty of Scotland's Government to protect the national interest and conserve our freshwater fisheries to secure the benefits for the environment and our rural economy. This must not be the end of the process, but simply the beginning.

The minister said in the stage 1 debate:

"The bill will secure the long-term future of wild salmon fisheries."—[Official Report, 23 November 2000; Vol 9, c 337.]

I suspect that even the minister's most enthusiastic supporters agree that those words may come back to haunt the coalition some day soon. Having expressed what SNP members think are the benefits of the bill, as well as our reservations, we ask the Parliament to support the bill, taking into account the SNP's amendment, which we also ask the Parliament to support.

I move amendment S1M-1502.1, to insert at end:

"and notes that the measures for the conservation of salmon which the Bill will allow are limited in nature; urges the Scottish Executive to bring forward an action plan designed to conserve salmon in all phases of their life cycle, and recommends that, as the existing corpus of statute law relating to salmon fishing and conservation is both complex and fragmented, a Consolidation Bill be brought forward as soon as practicable."

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The bill seeks to give the Executive unlimited power to control fishing. As far as we are aware, such power to control fishing—or any other privately owned activity—has never before been given to an Executive in the UK. There is no proposal to introduce any form of public ownership of fishing, so the Executive is seeking to exercise total control over it without assuming any of the responsibilities or costs of ownership.

Parliament should not be misled by the minister's statements on how she would exercise the power and the extent of consultation that would precede its exercise. If the bill is passed, no further recourse to the Parliament will be required, except to the extent of considering whether any regulations fall within the unlimited power that the Executive had been granted. The bill must be judged on the basis of what it says, not by the use that the minister proposes to make of it.

The decline in the salmon population was the subject of intensive research by the salmon strategy task force that was set up in 1995 and reported four years ago. As is now generally accepted, it found that the decline was due mainly to mortality at sea, not to anything that was happening on rivers and affecting spawning. It found no evidence of a deficiency of smolts leaving individual rivers, but recommended that that should be monitored.

The report did not recommend or even suggest that the Executive, except in cases of emergency, should be given any additional powers to act other than on an application by a board, let alone the unlimited power that the Executive is seeking. It is utter nonsense to suggest, as Rhona Brankin said in introducing the bill, that it

"will secure the long-term future of . . . fisheries."—[Official Report, 23 November 2000; Vol 9, c 337.]

That future depends on effective measures being taken to arrest the causes of the decline, not on restrictions on the current activities of fishermen and the inevitable effect on tourism and local economies.

The Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill is concerned with the management of fisheries and not directly with conservation, in spite of its title. It seeks to amend an act that relates to administration, not conservation. Of course good river fishery management includes the adoption of methods of fishing that are consistent with the river's requirements and those of the locality it serves, but that is only part of good management. Equally—if not more—important is the protection of spawning grounds and juvenile stock from the effects of agricultural and forestry practices, pollution, predation, erosion and flooding.

The Executive raised the better general management of fisheries in its "Protecting and Promoting" document, but the bill does nothing to secure that. The bill prejudices consideration of issues that were expressly raised in that document and the minister's letter that accompanied it. Any restrictions of fishing should be introduced in the overall context of general management, not in piecemeal legislation such as the bill.

The minister stated her intention to exercise the power largely on the application of boards, which the bill allows to apply for regulations, but the bill makes no provision that restricts the ability of future Executives to confine exercise of the power in that way. The minister has said that boards asked for more powers and that the bill delivers what they need. That is misleading. What boards asked for is in the document that was issued in June 2000 and was the only basis on which any prior consultation took place.

That document proposed legislation to give additional powers to boards to apply for regulations that would restrict fishing in some respects. The document proposed no power for the Executive to introduce restrictions other than on the application of boards, except in an emergency. The bill gives the Executive unlimited power to prohibit or restrict fishing, whether or not the boards make an application. Boards and others have made unsuccessful attempts to persuade the Executive to restrict that unlimited power to what was proposed in the consultation document.

The Salmon and Trout Association represents all angling interests—unlike the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards—and has now sent a circular to its members to say that the bill could be extremely damaging for Scotland's micro-fisheries and that there is a danger that it will not receive the popular support of anglers. The Conservatives agree with that view and therefore oppose the bill. If it is passed, it will do nothing for conservation.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

After hearing Jamie McGrigor's speech, I think that he should be a member of the Rural Development Committee. If he came to more of our meetings, he would understand the bill.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

If Mr McGrigor gives me a moment, I will let him in.

Mr McGrigor made it clear several times that the bill gives the Scottish Executive unlimited power. I will quote from the bill about which Jamie McGrigor is so ignorant. New section 10D(1) says:

"Regulations under section 10A of this Act shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament."

What Jamie McGrigor has just said on behalf of the Scottish Conservative party is untrue. It relates not to fact, but to fantasy. The Scottish Conservatives would serve their cause better if they read the bill before they commented on it.

Fergus Ewing's amendment to the motion contrasts with Jamie McGrigor's speech. It suggests that the Parliament

"notes that the measures for the conservation of salmon which the Bill will allow are limited in nature".

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Given that the member has only a few seconds left, will he discuss the Liberals' approach to the bill and their policy?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am coming to that. We should not forget the SNP's strange amendment. A few moments ago, Fergus Ewing—in whose name the amendment appears—talked about unfettered power, when John Home Robertson intervened on him. Now, the unfettered power has suddenly turned into power of a limited nature. Come on. The SNP cannot have it both ways, although it tries to yet again.

I am happy to say that the Liberal Democrats are absolutely delighted with the minister's work on the bill. There were two themes of concern—that fisheries management and that consultation with district boards were not mentioned in the bill. As a result of today's amendments and of compromise, both those issues will be included. That is absolutely clear. I have no hesitation in saying that the Liberal Democrats fully support the bill, which will do great things for conservation and fishery management on our rivers.

Remember that the bill has a limited function. It is about the conservation of salmon in the freshwater phase of their lives. The bill is about taking action where we can, now. I am pleased that it has almost all-party support; I am not sure about the Conservatives.

At the end of the day, this is a practical issue. We are getting on with the practicalities—the Liberal Democrats are very much in favour of that. There is more work to be done, for example on fish farming and related issues—the committee will work on them—but I commend the bill, as amended, to the chamber.

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

As six members have asked to speak, and the Minister for Rural Development is still to wind up, I ask that speeches be kept tight.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Having heard a few moments ago from Fergus Ewing the mortality commissioner—an appropriate title—we now have Richard Lochhead the consolidator. He has spoken in support of an amendment that asks that

"as the existing corpus of statute law relating to salmon fishing and conservation is both complex and fragmented, a Consolidation Bill be brought forward as soon as practicable."

Consolidation means codifying and re-enacting all the Victorian legislation that we discussed earlier. I do not want to consolidate all that legislation; I want to consign it to history. I hope that we will be able to do so as soon as possible, in view of what the minister has said about the green paper.

The fundamental point about the bill is that over the years there has been an alarming decline in salmon and sea trout stocks in Scottish rivers. We have a duty to do everything in our power to protect those important species, primarily because salmon are an important part of Scotland's natural environment, but also because they are an important element in our rural economy—important for Scottish anglers, for visitors and for the tourism industry—and because we have a duty to play our part in international efforts to safeguard these magnificent fish for the future.

Earlier—and not for the first time—I registered my strong feelings about the composition of district salmon fishery boards and the need for fresh legislation to make them more representative, inclusive and accountable. I am happy to acknowledge the good work of many boards—and indeed of the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards—but the fact remains that it is not tolerable in the 21st century to leave such responsibilities and such extensive powers in the hands of bodies that are dominated by landowners. That is why I was truly delighted to hear Rhona Brankin's announcement that a green paper will be published in the summer on the important issues covered by the consultation paper on protecting and promoting Scotland's freshwater fish and fisheries. I pay tribute to the minister for acting on this matter as promptly as she suggests she will.

For the time being, the district salmon fishery boards are the only bodies available to implement the important measures covered by the bill. It would be truly appalling if we were to get to the stage where someone, somewhere, earned the distinction of being the angler who killed the last salmon returning to a Scottish river. That must not be allowed to happen and it is what the bill is all about. The bill includes provision for consultation with anglers and environmentalists and essential fallback powers for ministers to make regulations under section 10A(3).

The bill is absolutely necessary as a stopgap measure. It would have been very difficult to find time for the issue at Westminster. I do not remember any Scottish National Party member at Westminster introducing such a bill, so it is a bit silly for Richard Lochhead to say that the Government should have done it in the past. However, I congratulate Rhona Brankin on taking this important bill through Parliament. Having worked with some of the bill team in the early stages, I too know that they worked hard on it. Above all, I eagerly look forward to returning to the far bigger issues, when Rhona returns to the Parliament with her green paper in the summer.

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

I think that all members are in total agreement on the importance of salmon fishing for Scotland. It is essential for tourism and for the economy of many of the constituencies that we represent. We can therefore agree—and we have all agreed—that we all share the aim of conserving salmon, which is, in many ways, a symbol of Scotland abroad. The question is whether the bill achieves that aim. By acknowledging the bottom line that fewer fish are surviving the marine phase of their lives, the minister clearly acknowledges that that is where the real problem lies. We welcome the measures in the bill, although there are serious imperfections in the bill and although we are reliant on the good intentions of the minister of the day in exercising widely drawn powers in a responsible way.

I remind members of the comments of the director of the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, who said that he wished

"strongly to emphasise that only some of the causes of reductions in salmon stock . . . can be attributed to the part of the life cycle over which Salmon Fishery Boards may exercise any control. The Association believes that many of the major drivers of salmon stock abundance are in the marine phase of the species' life-cycle".

Rhona Brankin acknowledged that in her remarks, and repeated that there are many bodies that give advice. However, I urge her to reflect on why, if everything is hunky-dory and if all those bodies are providing adequate advice, we have seen such a spectacular decline—85 per cent in four decades—in the level of salmon stocks.

It seems that the existing procedures are not operating correctly. That is why the SNP believes that there should be an action plan. Many of the Nickson report's recommendations should receive more careful consideration. That report was published five years ago. I was pleased to hear the minister confirm that there is an exercise to consolidate the existing legislation. To answer John Home Robertson's point, to reform the law one must first know what the law is at the moment. We obviously want fundamental reform of the existing law. In order to achieve that aim, we need to have a clear understanding of the many statutes that exist. I believe that most members recognise that.

It is absolutely imperative that an action plan be drawn up, and I hope that, however members vote today, the Executive will give my proposal serious consideration for the sake of conserving salmon.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

In accordance with your previous instructions, Presiding Officer, I shall be brief. However, I ask your indulgence for one moment, as I should have declared an interest earlier in today's proceedings. I own a short stretch of a very unproductive river, and I hope that members will forgive me for not having said that earlier. In previous debates and committee meetings, I have always been scrupulous in declaring that interest.

I should also put in a word of defence for my colleague Jamie McGrigor against Mr Rumbles's completely unwarranted personal attack. My colleague is too decent to say so himself but, as the Conservative fisheries spokesman, he was present at every meeting of the Rural Affairs Committee at which the bill was discussed. Mr Rumbles would do himself more favours—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will Mr Fergusson give way?

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

He would do himself more favours if he stuck to the facts and left off the rather unpleasant personal attacks.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will Mr Fergusson give way?

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Of course I shall give way—if only Mr Rumbles had the grace to wait until I had finished my sentence.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

My point was that Jamie McGrigor was taking the view that the bill gave unfettered power to Scottish ministers. He had not even read the bill. It is made quite clear in the bill that that is not the case. He was completely unaware—

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

I do not think that we should labour this point much longer.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I shall not labour it any further at all, Presiding Officer.

I found the passage of the bill, both through the Rural Affairs Committee and through the Parliament, somewhat disturbing. It was introduced as a non-controversial bill that all of Scotland would welcome. However, controversy has increased as the bill has progressed. I find that worrying. That alone should set alarm bells ringing, but the bells should be all the louder when we are told, as I have been told increasingly, that the bill will do little for conservation and is really an attempt to transfer slightly increased power from the local river boards to the Scottish Executive. The Scottish Executive has tried its hardest to consolidate that power by resisting all attempts to make local consultation mandatory. In short, the bill is more about powers of river management than about conservation.

At stage 1, the Conservatives gave a cautious welcome to the bill. Our caution has been absolutely justified. It is to my great sorrow that we are unable to lend our support to the bill any longer. It is generally agreed that the Scottish salmon strategy task force report of 1995 contained many of the answers required to address salmon conservation effectively. The bill does not contain enough of that report's recommendations to persuade us that it is anything other than an inadequate piece of legislation, somewhat hurried through the Parliament, which seeks to empower the Executive, without expense, in a way that will do virtually nothing for the conservation of salmon in Scotland. This party will not lend its name to poor and ineffective legislation. Because of that, sadly, we will not support the bill.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

We are all aware of the problems of the wild salmon fishery and of the reasons for the need for this bill so I will not repeat them. It is obvious that we need more research, but I am sure that some is taking place and the bill allows us to gather, consolidate and make use of that research.

The bill has been criticised as being too little, too late, because it addresses only rivers and is only enabling legislation, but I am sure that that criticism will be allayed by the minister's statement this morning of her intention to introduce a green paper. Others have complained that the bill is an infringement of their human rights because it allows Scottish ministers and district salmon fishery boards to legislate on the way that they fish. It has also been argued that the bill gives too much power to district salmon fishery boards and/or Scottish ministers—people can take their pick. The fact that all those arguments have been made leads me to believe that the balance between the powers given to each of the bodies has been struck properly.

A lot of the objections can be put down to suspicion of the unknown, because the measures that will be taken will not become clear until the secondary legislation is in place. The bill does allow the secondary legislation to address local circumstances. That is important, as a lot of the evidence that we have taken has shown that there are many reasons for the downturn in salmon stocks, depending on the river. The bill allows for local solutions to problems. Contrary to many rumours the legislation will be consulted on—everyone involved will have a voice.

I hope that by the end of the day the legislation will be in place and that we will have another tool to tackle salmon conservation. We must look forward to consider how the bill will be used. We must never forget that without salmon there will be no fishery. Those who feel that their interests are being affected by the bill should consider that—if there were no fishery, their interests would be severely affected.

We must also consider the way forward. Many issues that came up for discussion cannot be part of this bill. We need to consider the make-up and role of district salmon fishery boards. Not all rivers have boards and the make-up of boards is not uniform. Some boards are progressive and do a lot of good work; others are not and do not. We need to examine the legislation that governs them and ensure that best practice is put in place throughout the country. We must consider too the role of water bailiffs and whether their powers are relevant in a modern society. If they are, we must consider standardisation, training and accountability. If they are not, we must consider other options for policing rivers.

All those are questions that must be addressed in the future and that could not have been addressed under the bill. I urge members to support the bill and to put local solutions in place that will conserve salmon.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am pleased to support the bill. It is a limited measure, but a useful first step. I want to thank ministers for their patience when we dealt with new section 10A(3A) and for the compromise that they accepted. Today's statement is helpful and clarifies that even within the context of the bill as it stands, a revocation can take place if stocks improve after a regulation is made.

The minister said that the focus of my amendment would switch from fish to fisheries. I remind her that section 10 will be inserted into a section of the Salmon Act 1986 headed "General regulation of salmon fisheries", but there we are. There will be enough what might be termed Pepper v Hart-type statements in the Official Report of today's meeting to satisfy those who had the concerns that I attempted to articulate.

The bill is a useful first step. I hope that a number of measures will be implemented at a later date. In particular, I hope that we will be able to return to the issue of habitat, because I believe that there are major opportunities in that area. I regret that I was not able to draw up an amendment that was effective enough for this bill. Salmon is a vital resource for Scotland and it is a major income earner. We must protect it and this bill sends out that signal to all. We can progress from here.

I was interested during the debate in the insistence of my constituent John Home Robertson—I see that he is returning—on the reform of district salmon fishery boards. I accept that there may be occasion to do that later and it may be valuable to do so. However, I remind him that not all district salmon fishery boards are proprietor dominated. The River Tweed commissioners are not exactly a district salmon fishery board, but the proprietors are outnumbered and outvoted on a number of occasions by angling club members, one of whose complement I am.

Interesting times are ahead. We have made a useful start today. I congratulate the minister on taking this bill through and thank her again for her patience and courtesy when dealing with section 3.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Presiding Officer, I first respond to your stricture on failure to give due notice of substantive points of order. I apologise for that. You are quite right that if one is going to raise a matter of significance, one should give due notice.

The Executive wishes to underscore the general support that has been given today for the objectives of the bill. Although some have contended that obstacles in the path of the bill might prevent it making a difference, I refute those assertions. What we have here is more than we have ever had before. This bill adds significantly to the ability of fishery managers to manage their resource effectively for the good of salmon and for the good of Scotland.

I do not believe that the SNP amendment adds anything to the matters under consideration. I am glad that Fergus Ewing noted that ministers have conceded that consolidation is under consideration. We will bring it forward, subject to parliamentary time. At no stage—neither at stage 1 nor at stage 2—have we pretended that this was other than a limited piece of legislation, which was intended to amend the Salmon Act 1986. We have never said that dealing with the problems of salmon did not require wider consideration. Therefore, statements of the obvious seem not to add much to our consideration.

This is an enabling bill. The details of any measures to be introduced will necessarily have to be tailored to meet the needs of the district where they will be applied, and those will be spelled out when regulations are made. I stress that any proposed regulations will be the subject of full consultation. The bill requires that, and it is only right and proper. That is the time for matters of detail to be considered.

I say to Jamie McGrigor that I am astonished, because I have not heard it before, that the Conservatives in this Parliament believe that the procedures for dealing with secondary legislation—the procedures for consultation, consideration before a committee and having a vote in Parliament—are so fatally flawed that the process does nothing more than give unfettered and unlimited powers to a minister. I put it to Jamie McGrigor that that is not the case. All those procedures mean that any regulation that is proposed under this bill will be subject to scrutiny. Ministers do not, under this bill, gain full and unfettered powers.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

How much consultation was there on this bill?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

It was subject to the usual pre-legislative scrutiny, which is part and parcel of the procedures of the Parliament. I regret that Mr McGrigor is unaware of that. I repeat that we will adopt that procedure for the introduction of regulations.

The Tories have now totally withdrawn their support for the bill. I find that equally surprising, because they did so on the contention that this bill should have contained more measures. Let us consider the marshalled list of amendments lodged by the Tories today and at stage 2. If one adds them up, even if they had been accepted they would have made no substantial difference to this bill in any shape, size or form. Here we have a party that lodges what are, no doubt, worthy and well-thought-out amendments at stage 2 and stage 3 of the bill's progress, which do not add up to provision of the substance that the Conservatives claim is missing from the bill. I am extremely surprised that the Conservatives are withdrawing their support for the bill.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister deny that the two purposes of the bill are to give the Executive power and to stop salmon being killed?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Well, yes. [Laughter.]

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

Minister, I do not want to hear long theological arguments at this point. I would prefer to be finished by 1 o'clock.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

A self-denying ordinance on questions that ask questions and then repeat themselves is interesting. I will accept the Presiding Officer's stricture. I will not get into a theological argument, but I will move on.

We all recognise that Atlantic salmon face many problems. I repeat that the bill does not seek to address them all, not least because we have not identified all the problems. We must do that before we can think of ways to address them. We know about many factors that we in Scotland cannot address on our own. Some of the problems that beset our salmon occur when the fish are well outside our area of jurisdiction. We are active participants—part of the European Union delegation—in the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, and we will continue to make the case for Scotland's salmon to that body.

There are, however, some matters over which we can exercise some direct control. We know that there might be times when measures will have to be implemented to regulate the numbers of salmon that are being killed and we know that local managers will need access to information on which they can base their management programmes. The bill addresses those needs.

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

If I understood the minister's earlier remarks correctly, he supports the two parts of my amendment to the motion on the bill that say that the bill is limited in its scope and that there should be consolidation. The third part of the amendment says that there should be an action plan. Does the minister support that part of the amendment? If not, what does he suggest as an alternative? Will he apply the precautionary principle to the threats to salmon during their marine phase about which we have clear research?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

We are already doing that. I have indicated that, in so far as all those matters were dealt with at stage 1 and stage 2 and are being dealt with today during stage 3, Mr Ewing's amendment to the motion adds nothing to our deliberations.

I conclude by saying that the salmon has been important to Scotland for as long as there have been people around to fish for it. We need only think of the salmon that are represented on the coats of arms of many of our Scottish cities and towns to recognise the place that is held by the species.

We want to ensure that the salmon remains important and that it remains in sufficient numbers to allow our long-established and hugely important salmon fisheries to continue. Today, we have the opportunity to endorse a bill that honours our obligations to protect Scottish salmon and which takes a first step in that direction. There can be no better start to our record of achievements in 2001. I call on Parliament to give its unqualified support to the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill and to reject the SNP amendment.

Business Motion

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

The final item of business before lunch is consideration of business motion S1M-1520, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out the business programme. I ask any members who wish to speak against the motion to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

I call Tavish Scott to move the motion.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Before I move the motion, I intimate to Parliament three minor adjustments to next week's business. On Wednesday 17 January, two Sewel motions will be moved in the afternoon. Similarly, on Thursday 18 January, there will be a Sewel motion moved at 2 pm. The Conservative party has chosen fisheries and a route action plan as the matters for debate during the morning of Thursday 18 January. I am grateful to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for intimating that to me.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees

(a) the following programme of business— Wednesday 17 January 2001

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 1 Debate on the Mortgage Rights (Scotland) Bill followed by Executive Debate on the Health and Social Care Bill - UK Legislation followed by Executive Debate on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill - UK Legislation followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-1474 Janis Hughes: Acute Health Service Review in South Glasgow Thursday 18 January 2001

9.30 am Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Business

12.15 pm Ministerial Statement followed by Business Motion

2.00 pm Executive Debate on the International Criminal Court Bill - UK Legislation

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Executive Debate on the Scottish Strategy for Victims followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-1454 Alex Neil: Hepatitis C

Wednesday 24 January 2001

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Ministerial Statement followed by Committee Business followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 25 January 2001

9.30 am Scottish National Party Business

12.15 pm Ministerial Statement followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Stage 1 Debate on the Budget (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-1506 David Mundell: Robert Burns and (b) that the Rural Development Committee reports to the Health and Community Care Committee by 2 February 2001 on The Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No 2) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/449) and on the Feeding Stuffs (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/453)

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

As no member has asked to speak against the motion, I will put the question.

The question is, that motion S1M-1520, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

We begin this afternoon with question time.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.