Scottish Parliament, 13 September 2001

371 contributions from 76 members. The official report.

Introduction

Business Motion

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The first item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-2213, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a business programme. I call on Euan Robson to move the motion.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Before I move the business motion, I would like to thank the business managers for their help and co-operation in rearranging today's parliamentary business at short notice. In particular, I thank the Conservative party for agreeing to move its business to next week to allow consideration of stage 3 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill to proceed.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees the following programme of business— Thursday 13 September 2001

9.30 am Business Motion followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 3 Debate on the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill followed by Ministerial Statement on the Future of the SQA and National Qualifications followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Executive Debate on Physical Chastisement of Children followed by Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Motion on Scottish Commission for Public Audit followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business—debate on the subject of S1M-2066 Mary Scanlon: Men's Health Week, Scotland 7-14 September 2001 Wednesday 19 September 2001

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 1 Debate on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business—debate on the subject of S1M-2087 Fiona McLeod: UN Children's Summit: 19-21 September 2001 Thursday 20 September 2001

9.30 am Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Debate on Juvenile Justice followed by Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Debate on Improving Patient Care followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Executive Debate on Effective Assessment in Scotland's Schools followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business—debate on the subject of S1M-2119 Paul Martin: Community Issues in Sighthill, Glasgow Wednesday 26 September 2001

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Executive Debate on its Support for the Voluntary Sector followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Motion on the Publication of the Ombudsman for Scotland Annual Report 2000-2001

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 27 September 2001

9.30 am Scottish National Party Business 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 Police and Fire Services (Finance) (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business—debate on the subject of S1M-2054 Margaret Smith: RCN Scotland's "Value Nurses" Campaign Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Bureau Motion

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I ask Euan Robson to move motion S1M-2201, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, which is a timetabling motion for stage 3 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, at Stage 3 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill, debate on each part of the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion by the time-limits indicated (each time-limit being calculated from when Stage 3 begins and excluding any periods when the meeting is suspended)— Group 1 and Group 2—no later than 55 minutes Group 3—no later than 1 hour 25 minutes Groups 4, 5, 6 and 7—no later than 1 hour 55 minutes Motion to pass the Bill—no later than 2 hours 25 minutes.—[Euan Robson].

Motion agreed to.

International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

We move on to the stage 3 proceedings of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill. I will make the usual announcements about the procedure that will be followed.

First, we will deal with amendments to the bill. We will then debate the motion to pass the bill. For the first part of the proceedings, members should have a copy of the marshalled list and of the groupings that have been agreed. Amendments will be debated in groups where appropriate and each amendment will be disposed of in turn. An amendment that has been moved may be withdrawn with the agreement of the members present. It is possible for members not to move amendments should they so wish. The electronic voting system will be used for all divisions. I shall allow an extended voting period of two minutes for the first division that occurs after each debate on a group of amendments.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Amendment 40 is grouped with amendment 41.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is ironic that we are debating the bill against the background of the recent tragic events and also the death yesterday of Anton Gecas. That said, the bill does not deal with terrorism.

Amendment 40 seeks to displace what I call the minimalism of the Scottish Executive test for jurisdiction in pursuing alleged war criminals. It will substitute what I refer to as absolute universal jurisdiction. Members will have to pin their ears back at this point, as there are two kinds of jurisdiction. I refer to the absolute kind, which, by means of amendment 40, I wish to incorporate in the bill. That contrasts with partial universal jurisdiction, which—to put it simply—is the presence test. If amendment 40 is agreed to, it will have the consequential effect of making section 6 redundant. As that is the subject of amendment 41, I will speak only to amendment 40. The bill is inadequate and dismally disappointing. A sullen adherence to the residence test is parochial when we have the opportunity to be truly international.

Although amendment 40 is important, for many it is pretty esoteric stuff. As ministers and a few other souls in the chamber will recall, the argument was aired at stage 2. Many members will not have read the Official Report of the stage 2 debate, nor will they have committed the proceedings to memory. I will refer liberally to the Official Report with reference to the residence test.

There are obvious practical anomalies thrown up by the test. I will give an example. Mercenaries from many nations commit a heinous crime against humanity. It is committed against Red Cross volunteers who are engaged in humanitarian work. Two of the mercenaries are Scots; one is a German car trader who has just bought a flat in Glasgow, and another is an Italian who has commercial properties in Scotland and commutes here for business purposes. The latter two, when shopping in Princes Street, are recognised by one of their Red Cross victims. Are they resident in Scotland? Are they residents as defined under section 6 of the bill? I do not know and I suspect that neither do the ministers.

During the stage 2 debate, Iain Gray, the Deputy Minister for Justice, said that a person's uncertainty about their residency would act as a deterrent. That argument was also used during a Westminster debate on the UK bill, to which I will refer later. The argument is that in the minds of the mercenaries there would always be an element of doubt whether the residence element of the legislation applied to them. They might think that they would be arrested and extradited to another country that has jurisdiction over them, or arrested and surrendered to the international criminal court in The Hague.

That argument can be unpicked because uncertainty works both ways. If nations exercise universal jurisdiction, whether it is universal or partial, there is no hiding place. However, war criminals in Scotland might just have a long holiday, ensuring that residency—whatever that is—could never apply. Residency is a complex notion. As with immigration and whether a person is resident, there are many different tests: for tax, for matrimonial law and for education rights.

If we have no jurisdiction, a criminal could flee while awaiting extradition procedures. With the right to arrest, as provided for by my amendment, or even on the presence test, there could be no flight, nor even a safe haven—no uncertainty there. The deterrence argument is a fig leaf for the flaw in the bill.

The minister refuted the argument that criminals might visit Scotland with impunity by stating first that action is being taken to strengthen immigration rules. Does he really believe that a determined, guilty person could not work round those? Secondly, he contended that there might be insufficiency of evidence, even if we had universal jurisdiction. However, that would be determined by the Lord Advocate. If he were unable to try the case for that reason, it could be remitted to the international criminal court—there are rules allowing that. Thirdly, the minister argued that we should move in step with the statute and the international community.

Universal jurisdiction has been adopted by the following countries: Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, Germany, Argentina, Austria, Belize, Botswana, Dominica, Fiji, Finland, France, Ghana, Iceland, Italy, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Mali, Norway, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Spain, Tajikistan, Trinidad, Tobago, Venezuela. Residence has been adopted by San Marino, Gabon, the Marshall Islands, Senegal and, of course, the UK. I know which group I think is the international community.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the honourable lady give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is nice to be called honourable.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The member lists the countries that give support to the Rome statute. How many countries have not signed up to it and how many countries have not registered any kind of support?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

That is irrelevant. As I move through my speech I will mention one country that has not signed up.

Two men commit crimes against humanity. One is a Scot, the other is a Canadian. If they were both in Scotland—with the Canadian on holiday—we could prosecute only the Scot. If they were both in Canada—with the Scot on holiday—the Canadians, with partial universal jurisdiction or the presence test, could prosecute both. Under the terms of my amendment, if they were both on holiday in France, Scotland could prosecute them.

In the first example, how could a prosecution properly proceed against only one of the accused, and not his co-accused? We might have two prospective war criminals: one in Scotland and one in Canada. The residence test means that if we had all the evidence that we required and wished to prosecute, we could not prosecute the two together. We must remember that the purpose of the bill is that the national court will be the first court to try the case. The ICC steps in only in other, special circumstances. That is poor law.

Finally, I refer the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives to the House of Commons deliberations on these very issues earlier this year. There, the Conservative Crispin Blunt argued eloquently for absolute universal jurisdiction and pressed his argument to a vote, which he lost by five votes to 10. It was all aired far more thoroughly at Westminster than we have had the time and opportunity to do here.

Mr Blunt stated:

"Under universal jurisdiction, we will be able to claim the right to protect ... citizens who are victims of such crimes, wherever they are in the world. We do not want to limit such jurisdiction to presence"—

presence, not residence—

"in the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, House of Commons, Standing Committee D, 3 May 2001; c 306.]

He moved on to support the amendments of Robert Maclennan, Liberal Democrat, who was arguing for the presence test. Again, in an eloquent and well-argued position for partial jurisdiction, Mr Maclennan said:

"The term 'residence' is complex."—[Official Report, House of Commons, Standing Committee D, 3 May 2001; c 310.]

He went on to define it in terms of English law, which varies slightly in some respects from Scots law.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Only slightly?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It only varies because much of the residence test regards tax and immigration, which is, of course, UK-wide.

In English law, the term residence

"bears varying meanings according to its context, and great caution must be exercised before authorities on the meaning of residence in context such as bankruptcy, taxation, or ... poor law ... are applied .... In particular, it is clear that some degree of permanence is required for the acquisition of residence in some contexts, but not, or to a lesser extent, in others."

That was Mr Maclennan's argument. It is an argument that is also sustained in Scotland, where many lawyers are well aware of the complexities of defining that difficult notion of residence.

In the House of Lords, Baroness Scotland said:

"One cannot say with any certainty, for example, that every person who has come to the UK and stayed for two or three years is definitely a resident here. On the other hand, someone who has been here for a matter of days but has displayed every sign of residing here on a more permanent basis may be considered a resident."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2001; Vol 622, c 85.]

That is common sense.

Robert Maclennan said:

"The trouble is that definitions of residence will have little to do with the degree of moral culpability that is attached to the crimes with which they are charged. The definitions deal solely with the issue of jurisdiction. ... That means that the Bill will hinge on an uncertain test, or on a legally certain but narrow definition. We should not be happy with either."—[Official Report, House of Commons, Standing Committee D, 3 May 2001; c 311.]

Robert Maclennan made it clear that that was the Liberal Democrat position on jurisdiction.

It is interesting that during the debates at stages 1 and 2—brief though they were—the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats made no representations that reflected in any way the arguments that were put so well at Westminster.

I refer to the deterrence element again. Absolute jurisdiction—which was argued for by Robert Maclennan—would have allowed the immediate arrest of the German car trader and the Italian businessman. The Scottish National Party wants Scotland to play its full part in bringing those responsible for crimes against humanity to justice; as Robert Maclennan said, residence deals only with jurisdiction, not culpability. It is petty-minded, as well as being an uncertain anchor for prosecution.

I quote a contributor to the House of Lords debate:

"This is an opportunity to offer a lead to other countries in an exciting new, international venture. ... We should not sidle towards ... the edge of the crowd; we ought to be looking to give a lead here."—[Official Report, House of Lords; 12 February 2001; Vol 622, c 74.]

Well, I know sidling to the edge of the crowd when I see it.

I move amendment 40.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I have some sympathy with the case that has been put forward but it is outweighed by other considerations.

On 14 June, the minister gave three reasons for opposing universal jurisdiction. First, it is not consistent with the traditions of Scots law, which is based on territorial principles. Secondly, we have taken universal jurisdiction in the past only where it was required by international treaty. Thirdly, the Administration considered it inappropriate to assume the role of global prosecutor. We agree with the Administration's position, since it would be unrealistic for us to assume the role of police enforcer throughout the world. We believe that universal jurisdiction, unless supported by international treaty, would be unenforceable.

Of course, it may be that there will be further international treaties in the fullness of time, but not at this stage. In any case, the collection of evidence to meet the 110-day time limit would be very difficult to meet. We believe that it would be a mistake, in the first instance, to bite off more than we can chew. The bill gets it about right. However, that does not preclude further legislation. For those reasons, I recommend to my colleagues that they support the Administration.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I oppose amendment 40. We had the same debate at stage 1, and it is a legitimate debate to have. It shows the maturity of a Parliament that it can at least debate the possibility of incorporating that difference from the UK act into the Scottish bill. However, the arguments against the adoption of universal jurisdiction are quite overwhelming.

Christine Grahame listed the countries that have signed up to that concept, but the vast majority of countries have not signed up to it. That means that the practicalities of adopting such a principle are huge. What Christine Grahame is suggesting would mean, for example, that Scotland could detain a French national, although France is not signed up to universal jurisdiction, and attempt to prosecute him or her. The idea that there would be no diplomatic repercussions for Scotland doing that to nationals of countries that had not signed up to the principle is a little naïve.

Many practicalities must be considered in connection with the concept of universal jurisdiction. We could have to prove a case against a person who is on holiday in Scotland, who is just passing through, and who has virtually no connection with Scotland. In cases of international crime, the scene of the crime will often not be in Scotland either. Scotland has legal time limits. In custodial cases, 110 days is all that we have to prove a case against a person, and such practicalities would have to be considered before adopting such a principle.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

What is Pauline McNeill's solution to the problem of, let us say, two co-accused, one of whom has a residence in Scotland and can be tried here—supposing it was appropriate for the case to be tried here—and the other of whom does not have a residence here and therefore cannot be brought to justice in this country? That would mean running a case against one accused, without the co-accused. Is not that a huge problem?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Whatever principle is adopted, there will be anomalies, and the anomaly in that example raises an important point. However, Christine Grahame is looking at the bill without considering other measures that are in place, such as other international obligations and the right of extradition. We must consider the whole of international law, not just the bill that we are examining today, to see what powers are available to Scotland and to the UK.

On balance, the practicalities of adopting such a principle mean that I am unable to support amendment 40. It is important to note that the treaty does not require Scotland, or indeed the UK, to adopt such a principle. I therefore oppose the amendment.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I too encourage my colleagues to oppose amendment 40. I appreciate Christine Grahame's point and she has been consistent in her advocacy of it at all stages of the bill. However, Pauline McNeill has also made a number of important points.

Christine Grahame intervened to give an example of problems with residence. It is my understanding that, if the co-accused was not resident in Scotland, that is exactly the sort of circumstance in which the international criminal court would take action. That would be dealt with by the proceedings of the court.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton listed three reasons that were given by the minister at stages 1 and 2 as to why universal jurisdiction is not appropriate for Scotland, the principal one being that the main principle of Scots law is based on territoriality. Paragraph 25 of the Justice 2 Committee's stage 1 report on the bill stressed the importance of maintaining

"internal consistency within domestic law, rather than trying to harmonise with the International Criminal Court in circumstances where that is not required."

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Would Tavish Scott have supported Robert Maclennan's position on the presence test?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I find it interesting that Christine Grahame raises what is going on at Westminster and what is said in another place, in another context, about a different form of law, where different principles apply. Perhaps she will want to reflect on that.

The second argument that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton mentioned against adopting the principle was that universal jurisdiction has hitherto been enshrined in Scots law only when that has been required by international treaty. Pauline McNeill made the same point. Universal jurisdiction was not part of the Rome statute. Indeed, the treaty has been built by way of international consensus. If one looks at the wider picture, especially in the light of recent events, that is an important measure that the international community can use to make progress. It will help to ensure that, in addition to the countries that have already signed up to or are about to ratify the treaty, many other countries will become involved. That is an aspiration that I hope all members share.

Thirdly, as Lord James said, it has been argued that Scotland would not want universal jurisdiction in this case, because it demands that our legal system assume the responsibility of global prosecutor. That is a worthy consideration, which should be taken into account. For those reasons, I oppose amendment 40.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

During stages 1 and 2, the Executive position was that universal jurisdiction is not the most appropriate approach. There are several key reasons why that is so, which are worth repeating.

We believe that the strongest guiding principle that should inform our approach to this matter is the will of the international community; the clear will of the international community in this respect is the Rome statute. A departure from the international consensus would surely constitute parochialism on our part. It is therefore important to focus on the Rome statute as our legislation moves through its final stage in the Scottish Parliament and particularly as we discuss amendments 40 and 41. After all, the main purpose of the bill is to ensure that Scotland and the United Kingdom are able to ratify the Rome statute on the international criminal court.

The statute is a carefully drafted document that was finalised only after many years of debate and discussion, so it represents the clearest expression of the thinking of the international community on how we should tackle the gravest of crimes. It envisages an approach that encourages individual countries to live up to their own responsibilities in the prosecution of war crimes and other crimes that have been committed by their own citizens. The preamble to the statute says:

"the International Criminal Court established under this Statute shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions".

Therefore, national courts will retain primary jurisdiction. However, where individual countries are unable or unwilling genuinely to take action, perhaps for some of the reasons that Christine Grahame has outlined, where conflict has led to a collapse of the local judicial system, or where a dictatorial Government refuses to punish its own abuses, the statute envisages that the ICC will be established, as provided for in article 1,

"to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern".

That contrasts clearly with an alternative approach, which the international community might have chosen to take, whereby ratifying countries would ensure that they had universal jurisdiction to deal with war criminals no matter where they were found or where the crimes occurred. Had that approach been taken, the need for the international criminal court itself would have been much less clear. That was explicitly not the consensus.

Nowhere does the statute stipulate that individual countries should head down the path of prosecuting individuals who have no connection to them. Given the often enormously complex nature of the international conflicts that engender such situations, it is not difficult to see why that is the case.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does the minister accept that, although the statute does not say that a country must have universal jurisdiction, neither does it say that a country cannot have universal jurisdiction and that that is a matter for individual nations? Does he think that Canada has made a big mistake in accepting the presence test, for instance?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Let me address the approaches that other countries have taken a little later in my speech. There were two alternative routes that the discussions on the Rome statute could have chosen to take. One was to promote the idea of universal jurisdiction in as many countries as possible to allow international crimes to be brought to justice and the alternative was to set up the international criminal court as the institution to bring such cases to justice. Setting up the court would not have been required if the alternative approach had been taken. The construction of the international criminal court in and of itself is clear evidence of the non-requirement for universal jurisdiction to be adopted, except in countries where that is the legal tradition, which is not the case in Scotland.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am glad that the minister has such faith in the ICC, but I am concerned that the ICC might move slowly and a nation state with universal jurisdiction will be lost when there is an opportunity to detain and apprehend a suspected war criminal. Such a situation will happen in due course. I may be proved wrong, but I am greatly concerned. Extradition is not a quick process.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

That argument is wrong—it undermines the ICC's credibility before it has been constructed.

It has been pointed out that Scottish legal traditions are reflected consistently in the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill. The most important tradition is the principle that territorial jurisdiction is central to the prosecution of crimes in Scotland. In Scots law, criminal jurisdiction is based on the territorial principle. In the absence of legislation to the contrary, the jurisdiction of the Scottish criminal courts is limited to crimes that are committed in Scotland.

That jurisdiction has been changed in a number of instances that lend argument to the Executive's position. Two statutes that extend jurisdiction of the Scottish courts to offences that are committed outwith Scotland are the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Sex Offenders Act 1997, section 8 of which inserted section 16B into the 1995 act. That level of jurisdiction is contained in the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill. Perhaps more relevantly, universal jurisdiction as described by Christine Grahame is taken through the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which provides for the prosecution of the offence of torture committed in the UK or elsewhere by a public official of any nationality. The key point is that in the two latter instances, universal jurisdiction was taken in UK law specifically because it was required by international agreement. That is not the situation in respect of the Rome statute.

Many of Christine Grahame's examples refer to countries with a tradition of universal jurisdiction in their domestic law, which is why it has been carried through to their ratification of the Rome statute. The information is difficult to find, given that many countries have not yet ratified the statute. Switzerland, for example, was mentioned, but it has not ratified it. I understand that Australia and France will not take universal jurisdiction. Many of the 139 countries that have signed the statute have not yet ratified it and some have ratified it without domestic legislation prior to ratification. The situation is complex, but the principle is that countries stick to the principles of their own legal systems.

We are not doing the minimum required by the statute, as Christine Grahame said. Our provisions are perfectly in tune with the principles and philosophy of the treaty, which attempts to build an international approach to dealing with instances where war crimes, for example, cannot be dealt with by domestic courts. Amendments 40 and 41 suggest that we turn our back on that consensus. Not only is such an approach impractical, it risks diverting us from the key business at hand, which is to establish and support the ICC.

There are also practical considerations. If a suspected war criminal with whom there was no Scottish connection were simply on a fleeting visit—shopping in Princes Street perhaps—can it realistically be expected that sufficient information could be gathered against them to meet the time requirements that are an important safeguard in our legal system? It would be much better to arrest and extradite the suspect to a country where there is a connection, or indeed to the ICC itself.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does the minister accept that, if we had absolute universal jurisdiction and had detained, for example, a German mercenary on Princes Street but were unable to prosecute because of the difficulties of evidence, the ICC would take over at that point? The point is that in those circumstances the person would have been detained and would be in custody.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

If extradition were sought against the person, he would similarly be arrested and detained. Christine Grahame's concern that they would immediately hop on the nearest plane and leave would not apply.

There is the real risk that the encouragement of universal jurisdiction as the route for dealing with such issues would undermine the very institution we are seeking to establish. Christine Grahame's comments add some weight to that argument. It is not hard to see that if the ICC investigated an individual and decided not to take action against him but another country with perhaps no connection at all with the crime or the suspect subsequently decided that they would step in and prosecute, the credibility and robustness of the ICC would be undermined.

There are good reasons of principle why we should not take universal jurisdiction, such as our wish to be consistent with our own traditions and the international consensus. There are also practical considerations, such as the difficulty of prosecuting within the stipulated time limits. For those reasons, we remain convinced that we should stick with the extended jurisdiction in the bill and resist the idea of universal jurisdiction.

I invite Christine Grahame to withdraw amendment 40 and not move 41.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I do not seek to undermine the ICC in any way—I fully support its existence. I am concerned about the residence test. Aside from the uncertainty and how the test might be manipulated by suspected criminals—

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

rose—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I want to finish what I was saying. I want to ensure that there is no chance that criminals will escape or that there will be extensive delays in prosecuting criminals—that may occur with the operation of international law. The minister said that the ICC is complementary, but he is aware that the first port of call for prosecution is the domestic court.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I did not intend to say that Christine Grahame wanted deliberately to undermine the ICC. As the bill has progressed, her commitment to its primary purpose has been manifest. My point is that the argument for universal jurisdiction runs the risk of leading inadvertently to the undermining of the credibility of the ICC. I did not intend to imply that she meant deliberately to undermine the ICC.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The question is, that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

There will be a division.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The result of the division is: For 26, Against 76, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 40 disagreed to.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Amendment 41, in the name of Christine Grahame, has already been debated with amendment 40.

Amendment 41 moved—[Christine Grahame].

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The question is, that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

There will be a division.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The result of the division is: For 26, Against 75, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 41 disagreed to.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Amendment 1 is grouped with amendments 2, 29, 6, 7, 30, 10, 11, 31, 32, 17, 18, 33, 21, 34, 24, 36, 37, 38 and 39.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

In lodging amendment 1, we are concerned with the principle that the Lord Advocate's post is one of the great offices of state and that that office is independent of any other person.

Over the centuries, the Lord Advocate has been responsible for our system of criminal prosecution and the investigation of deaths in Scotland. That function was extended in the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995. Under those acts, the investigation of the proceeds of crime and applications for freezing or restraint orders in respect of property liable to forfeiture is in the specific remit of the prosecutor. The International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill seeks to change that and it represents a whittling away and a diminution of the role of the Lord Advocate.

It is ironic that I should have to defend the Lord Advocate from his colleagues. In response, the Executive takes the view that the functions in part 2, which relates to the provision of assistance to the international criminal court, fulfil the Executive's international obligations. Those functions include directing the chief constable to serve documents; directing the procurator fiscal to apply to the sheriff for a warrant for entry, search and seizure; and directing authorised persons to apply for production orders or warrants in the course of an investigation into the proceeds of crime. The Executive might be correct, but those functions relate to the investigation and prosecution of crime and to the direction of the prosecution authorities in fulfilling those obligations. Therefore, part 2 removes or erodes the independent element of dealing with extremely serious matters involving crimes against humanity. Great as the expertise of the Deputy First Minister might be, it is, I regret, on a different plane altogether from that of the Lord Advocate.

The Lord Advocate and his staff represent the independent element, which is a major factor in Scotland's criminal justice system. Any attempt to erode the Lord Advocate's powers and functions should be strongly resisted.

If we lose the vote on the principle, we will seek to restore the Lord Advocate's legitimate powers and functions at the first available opportunity. I will seek one division on the issue and not 20, as we consider the principle involved to be important.

I move amendment 1.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

That was stirring stuff. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton rightly said that the Lord Advocate is independent of other persons. The Scotland Act 1998 provides statutory functions that apply to the Lord Advocate, which are legally enforceable by him. From my understanding of the amendments it strikes me that, as the Deputy Minister for Justice said when the issue was considered at stage 2:

"it would be appropriate to confer new statutory functions on the Lord Advocate only where they relate to his position as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 26 June 2001; c 305.]

There is a need for political impartiality in domestic cases because otherwise the process could be subject to interference. If the amendments were agreed to, the functions that the bill would confer on the Lord Advocate could conflict with his existing role as head of prosecutions and investigator of deaths. Part 2 of the bill handles civil proceedings, which are outwith the usual responsibility of the Lord Advocate, who handles criminal proceedings. Therefore, there is a solid argument in favour of rejecting the amendments.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Amendment 1 is important and it deals mainly with the separation of powers. It has to be understood that the role of Lord Advocate in Scotland is a special one and that it is possibly unique in the legal roles of prosecutors, certainly throughout Europe. It has to be remembered that the Lord Advocate is not a minister for the interior, which is the position that many jurisdictions have to fulfil, as envisaged in the statute. It is not a question of the Minister for Justice, whoever that might be in the future, having the ability to overrule the Lord Advocate. The Minister for Justice should not be involved in these matters because there is a dilution of the principle of independence.

I cannot understand Tavish Scott's apparent suggestion that there is a degree of conflict in what Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is proposing. Conflict is precisely what we are trying to avoid. We are trying to establish the principle that the Lord Advocate is totally and utterly independent from the Government.

It is possibly a natural consequence of devolution that the role of Lord Advocate has been politicised to some extent. That was inevitable, but definitely unfortunate. We are seeking to ensure that the important role of Lord Advocate retains a degree of independence. That is necessary for it to maintain the degree of respect that it has had historically. Even at this stage, we ask the Minister for Justice to re-examine the provision, which would in no way diminish the powers of the bill. We all hope that the bill will become an act. The amendments would be a step towards upholding the independence of the Scottish prosecution system.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I respect the spirit in which Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has lodged the amendments and in which Bill Aitken has spoken to them. I recognise the historic and important role of the Lord Advocate in the Scottish legal system, not least in the Scottish criminal justice system. In the exercise of my duties as the Minister for Justice I have done my utmost to scrupulously remember the important distinction of the Lord Advocate's role as the independent head of the systems of criminal justice prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland. Journalists sometimes cannot understand—no doubt to their frustration—why I will not comment on the reason why cases have not been prosecuted. It is not my responsibility nor should it be.

Against that background and that recognition of the importance of the Lord Advocate, I nevertheless believe that the amendments should be resisted. The subject was debated at stage 2 and the Deputy Minister for Justice said at that time that our view is that the amendments are not consistent with what was intended as regards the conferral of ministerial functions provided for in the Scotland Act 1998. If one considers the scheme of that act, post devolution all statutory functions should be conferred on Scottish ministers collectively, so that legally they can be exercised by any one of them. It is for the First Minister to decide which Scottish minister should exercise a particular function through the allocation of ministerial portfolios and responsibilities. The only exceptions to that are in the case of the First Minister and the Lord Advocate, upon whom statutory functions are conferred that may be legally exercised only by them.

As we observed, in the case of the Lord Advocate those functions are well known. They are the functions that he carried with him when he ceased to be a minister of the Crown in the UK Government and became a minister of the Scottish Executive. Before that occurred, the functions previously performed by the Lord Advocate, other than in relation to criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland, were transferred to the Secretary of State for Scotland and thereafter to the Scottish ministers. We believe that it would be appropriate to confer new statutory functions on the Lord Advocate only when they relate to his position as head of the system of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland. Those are functions that he is required to operate independently of any other person. He cannot—nor should he—be directed as to how he exercises those functions.

However, the functions in part 2 of the bill that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton wants to provide as being exclusively carried out by the Lord Advocate do not relate to his position as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths. Those functions fall into three categories.

First, there are functions that relate directly to fulfilling requests from the international criminal court for assistance. Those include section 13 on the taking and production of evidence; section 14 on further provisions on the taking and production of evidence; section 18 on the provision of records and documents; and section 21 on the verification of material. Those functions relate primarily to the implementation of our international obligations, not to the systems of criminal prosecution in Scotland. It is therefore appropriate that they are conferred upon Scottish ministers collectively.

Secondly, there are functions that relate to the taking of civil proceedings. Those include section 19 on the investigation of proceeds of ICC crime and section 20 on freezing orders in respect of property liable to forfeiture. In addition to being examples of Scottish ministers discharging obligations to provide assistance to the ICC, those functions operate in relation to civil matters. They do not relate to the system of criminal prosecution in Scotland.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I ask the minister to clarify a point. He referred to the requirement to pass on documents to the ICC. In some circumstances, might those documents already be under the control of the Lord Advocate? What action would the minister take in those circumstances?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

By passing this legislation and the United Kingdom then ratifying the Rome statute, we will undertake international obligations. We would want to take action to be as fully compliant with those obligations as we can. The point is that those are civil proceedings in sections 19 and 20. They do not relate to the Lord Advocate's role as part of the criminal prosecution system in Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Surely it is the case that what we have in part 2 is not a civil situation; what we have are preliminary activities that are the prelude to criminal prosecution. Is it not the case that to try to preserve a façade of ministerial involvement is merely to place a fig leaf over what will—and should—remain the fundamental and primary responsibility of the Lord Advocate?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I indicated that there are three categories. The first one, to which I have referred, is on fulfilling requests that come from the ICC. By their nature, those requests would be directed towards Scottish ministers. Those international obligations are appropriately discharged by Scottish ministers rather than by placing a specific duty on the Lord Advocate. Likewise, functions related to civil proceedings should be discharged by Scottish ministers.

The third category of functions include those in section 15 that direct the chief constable to serve a document or those in section 16 that direct the procurator fiscal to apply for a warrant.

I do not like to challenge amendments on the basis of technicalities or drafting. The points that I have argued relate to substance. However, if Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's amendment 31 to section 16 was to be accepted, a curious position would arise in which a different Scottish minister would have to make a request to the Lord Advocate. That is interesting because the concept of collective responsibility, which binds the Lord Advocate, would mean that he was being requested to do something that, by definition, he had already agreed to do. Where could he exercise a separate, independent judgment on those matters? That is a technical point, but it illustrates that those functions are appropriately conferred on Scottish ministers.

I accept that the directions to the chief constable or the procurator fiscal are similar to the functions that the Lord Advocate would carry out when dealing with prosecutions in Scotland. It is more than likely that—without in any way binding the First Minister—the First Minister would take that into account when deciding which minister would exercise these functions. However, it is far better to leave the position as being that, quite properly, in fulfilling our international obligations those functions are exercised by Scottish ministers, rather than putting it in the bill that the Lord Advocate would exercise them. I ask the chamber to reject Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's amendment.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I have about 40 seconds to reply.

I say to the Deputy First Minister that the functions concerned are ancillary and related to criminal prosecution. Those have been the responsibility of the Lord Advocate in the past and, as far as I know, there has never been any problem with his discharge of those duties. We believe that this is a significant diminution of his role, which is unnecessary and regrettable. We wish to press amendment 1 to a vote.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

There will be a two-minute division.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The result of the division is: For 43, Against 58, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I call Iain Gray to speak to and move amendment 43, in the name of Jim Wallace, which is grouped with amendment 47.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Members of the Justice 2 Committee will recall that, during our stage 2 discussion of the bill on 26 June, I agreed to reconsider the provisions in section 12(4). Having reflected on the matter, I am now persuaded that the most suitable course of action—and that which is most consistent with domestic procedure—is to remove the provisions in section 12(4) that refer to consent being given by an appropriate person to questioning on behalf of another person. The effect of amendment 43 is that only the person to be questioned can give consent. I have also given consideration to the amendment 47, in the name of Christine Grahame. Although I sympathise with its intentions, I am not inclined to agree in this instance that it represents the best way forward.

Our objectives are twofold: to fulfil our obligations to provide assistance to the ICC; and to reflect as far as is practicable similar domestic arrangements, where such arrangements exist. In that respect, what amendment 43 proposes does not differ significantly from what takes place daily in Scotland. For example, any suspect may be advised that they are to be questioned, but that they are not bound to answer. Furthermore, if it is thought that questioning by the police has been carried out in an unfair manner, it is highly likely that it will not be admissible in court in evidence thereafter.

The same will apply to questioning undertaken at the behest of the ICC and will be covered by its regulations on admissibility. For example, article 69 of the Rome statute states:

"Evidence obtained by means of a violation of this Statute or internationally recognised human rights shall not be admissible".

Attempting to define exactly the circumstances in which a person can give consent to questioning not only is unnecessary for the reasons I have just outlined, but might be unworkable in practice. The High Court has consistently declined to set out exactly when a person is considered incapable. Each case must be considered on its merits. Any attempt to provide a fixed definition to be applied in all circumstances could have the unintentional effect of obstructing our obligation to provide assistance to the ICC.

It is worth pointing out what usually happens in Scotland—under this bill or any other similar domestic circumstances—if the police wish to question an individual who is thought, for example, to have a mental disorder. The relevant details are to be found in the current Scottish appropriate adult scheme, which was introduced in June 1998 by the then Scottish Office. That code of practice, which is based on a multi-agency, non-statutory model, gives comprehensive guidance on such matters, and I believe that it accounts for the legitimate concerns that were raised by the Justice 2 Committee during its stage 2 consideration.

For instance, the guidance specifies that if the officer in charge of the investigation detects signs of mental disorder in the interviewee, he or she must arrange for a medical examination to establish whether an interview can take place. If the interview does proceed, an appropriate adult, as defined by the code, is to be present to ensure, among other things, that the interviewee understands the questions being put to him or her and the implications of their answers.

As a result, I am satisfied that if members accept amendment 43, section 12 will allow us both to fulfil our obligations under the Rome statute and to retain consistency with current domestic procedure and—given the key issue in this regard—that of admissibility of evidence before the competent court.

I move amendment 43.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I thank the minister for his comments. I am greatly satisfied by what he has said this morning. It shows the value of lodging what might be called "testing amendments" at stage 2. As the minister will recall, he said at the time:

"The current wording of section 12 achieves that aim"—

the protection of capacity—

"and also builds in important safeguards."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 26 June 2001; c 301.]

I am grateful to the minister for reconsidering the position and deciding that the earlier provisions were flawed. Given his comments, I believe that we should support amendment 43.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I will be very brief. I thank the minister for responding to the draft amendment on the same point that I lodged at a much earlier stage. It is very refreshing to see that he has recognised that the matter required attention. It would be wrong for consent to be given where a person has a mental incapacity and might not be able to give such consent themselves.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I call the minister to wind up.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 43 agreed to.

[Amendment 47 not moved.]

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

We come to amendment 3, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I will speak briefly to amendment 3. If I may say so, I am slightly astonished that an Executive in such a modern Parliament still does not support the idea of digital signatures. However, I accept that the minister, in his wisdom, might well support the principle and might wish to deal with the matter by comprehensive legislation covering other circumstances in due course. I hope that, in the meantime, he will accept communications with digital signatures, as they might become commonplace in a relatively short period of time.

I move amendment 3.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

We are indeed a modern Executive. The matter is generally under consideration for possible inclusion in future legislation. However, some aspects about the most suitable way to make the required provision have still to be worked out. As a result, it would not be desirable to use the bill as a vehicle to pre-empt what may or may not come along after due consideration. Any legislation that might be introduced on this issue is likely to be all-embracing and cover all appropriate situations where signatures are required by statute and common law. Although I recognise Lord James's modernity, I ask him to withdraw amendment 3.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Although I am grateful for the minister's reply, he should at least send a signal that this Parliament is as modern as any other Parliament. For that reason, I will press the amendment to a vote.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

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

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

There will be a division.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The result of the division is: For 41, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 3 disagreed to.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Amendment 42 concerns another matter to which I undertook to give further consideration following the stage 2 debate. Having done so, I believe that the amendment would maintain consistency with the current procedures in domestic law. We are therefore happy to accept amendment 42.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

We also support amendment 42, as the issue that it deals with is akin to the taking of a precognition. It would be inappropriate to have cross-examination of the kind that is envisaged in the line concerned. Christine Grahame is to be congratulated on having spotted a major defect in the bill and corrected it.

Amendment 42 agreed to.

[Amendments 6 and 7 not moved.]

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Amendment 44, in the name of the Minister for Justice, is grouped on its own.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Amendment 44 is a technical amendment. The purpose of section 24 is to disapply any domestic provisions that could affect the sentence calculation of ICC prisoners who are accepted to serve their sentences in Scotland. The ICC alone will determine the length of sentences of prisoners whom it convicts. As chapter 1 of part III of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 has been repealed, it seems appropriate to remove reference to it from the bill. That is what the amendment does.

I move amendment 44.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

The minister is correct to approach the matter in such a manner. The international criminal court will be the sole arbiter of its sentences. Domestic legislation that could relate, for example, to early release will, therefore, be disapplied. Will the minister confirm that we are obliged to accept that under the Rome statute?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

That is my understanding. Someone who served an ICC-imposed sentence in Scotland would be likely to face deportation on release from that sentence. Indeed, it is difficult to foresee circumstances in which they would not.

Amendment 44 agreed to.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Amendment 45, in the name of the Minister for Justice, is grouped on its own.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Like amendment 44, amendment 45 is a technical amendment. It is necessary to ensure that when an ICC prisoner is finally released by order of the ICC, he or she will not remain subject to any transfer directions and restriction directions that may have been ordered under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.

I move amendment 45.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

We support the amendment. It ensures that the transfer restrictions relating to a person with mental health problems would be removed at the end of a sentence. At the end of their sentence, the person will almost certainly be deported. Persons who are resident in Scotland will be tried under Scots law. If the person was not resident in Scotland, he or she might have been tried by the international criminal court, but could have served the sentence in Scotland. This is a welcome amendment.

Amendment 45 agreed to.

International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

We now move to the debate on motion S1M-2044, in the name of Jim Wallace, which seeks agreement that the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I thank members, not least those on the Justice 2 Committee, for the work that they have done on this important bill. I also thank those who contributed to the work of the Justice 2 Committee through the submission of written or oral evidence. From the amendments that have been lodged in the light of the committee's deliberations, it is clear that those who gave evidence, the members of the committee and the clerks who served the committee have properly and fully discharged their scrutiny function. The bill has arrived at this stage of the process in a better state because of that work.

I also thank officials in the justice department for their work on the bill—including liaison with the Home Office to ensure that the bill works in tandem with the Westminster act—and the Deputy Minister for Justice, Iain Gray, for his considerable endeavours in the scrutiny of the bill. That scrutiny has been completed within a very tight timetable to enable the United Kingdom to be among the first 60 countries to ratify the Rome statute on the international criminal court.

The amendments that have been debated were lodged in response to concerns that were raised. We also had an important debate on the role of the Lord Advocate and the appropriate forms of jurisdiction. I am confident that the bill is a robust one that will allow Scotland to fulfil its international obligations and play its part in the establishment of a permanent international criminal court.

The events of this week have brought home to us how horrific crimes against humanity can be. However, although the bill will deal with some of the most terrible crimes known to mankind, the Rome statute does not extend the remit of the international criminal court to crimes of terrorism in so far as the definition of those crimes is normally understood. In considering the Rome statute and in setting up the ICC, the international community took the view that terrorist crimes should be dealt with under the 12 or so existing international conventions and protocols on terrorism. Special measures for dealing with terrorism are a reserved matter under schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998.

That said, it is too early to arrive at definitive judgments on whether, if it had been in place, the ICC would have been called on to deal with the appalling and destructive atrocities that were perpetrated on Tuesday. What is clear, however, is that the events of Tuesday demonstrate just how far some people are prepared to go in committing terrible carnage and crimes in pursuit of their aims. Whether that crime would have been within the remit of the ICC should in no way deflect from the importance of the need to establish the ICC as an international institution.

We have been reminded constantly of the terrible nature of war crimes. In January, I represented the Scottish Executive at the national Holocaust memorial day ceremony in the Methodist Central Hall. The testimony of those who had suffered in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany, Bosnia, Rwanda and Cambodia brought home the appalling treatment that people can mete out to fellow human beings. We are also reminded of that by the on-going work of the tribunals that have been specifically established to deal with the events in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

One sometimes little-thought-of aspect of the move towards the establishment of a permanent international criminal court is the deterrent effect that it is hoped such an institution on the international stage will have on those who are tempted to commit appalling offences. Even if a few such people are deterred by the fact that the ICC will be in operation and will take action immediately, the efforts of this Parliament and of the international community will have been well worth while.

The International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill will enable the United Kingdom to fulfil its obligations under the Rome statute and will thus allow ratification of the treaty. Part 1 defines genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in exactly the same fashion as the Rome statute does and makes them crimes in Scots law. That is important from the point of view of complementarity, which is the principle that individual countries investigate and prosecute those crimes where there is a relevant connection.

Part 2 makes provision for Scottish ministers to provide assistance to the ICC in its investigations and prosecutions. It does that by making provision for helping with the identification of individuals in whom the ICC has an interest, for taking and providing evidence, for questioning those who are being investigated or prosecuted and for allowing the assets of crime to be traced and frozen.

Part 3 makes arrangements for orders to levy fines, forfeitures and reparations against those convicted by the ICC in response to an ICC request. It also permits those convicted by the ICC to be brought to Scotland to serve their sentences of imprisonment, which is an important measure of assistance, given that the ICC cannot, by definition, have its own prison.

The latest figures indicate that 37 countries have taken the important step of ratifying the Rome statute. It is gratifying that we are almost two thirds of the way towards the total number of signatories that are required before the court can be established. With the passing of the bill, the UK will be able to add its name to that list of countries and will thereafter be able to take its place among the first assembly of state parties to be established after the total of 60 countries is reached. That will be a momentous and important occasion in the development of international justice, to which our legislation will have made a contribution.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I thank the minister for the remarks that he made during stage 2 of the bill in the Justice 2 Committee, which is my former committee. As usual, of course, a little more time at that stage would have been useful.

As the minister said, the fact that the debate on this bill was due to take place yesterday is a bitter irony, as images of a burning New York replaced it on our agenda and the agenda of the world. That was graphic evidence, if any were needed, that this is a small planet where our enemy can steal up on us and where the hatred of one nation or one people by another can be fought out on our television screens blow by horrendous blow. However, the bill does not concern terrorism; it deals with the crimes that are contained within the horrific walls of war and its consequences. Those crimes include

"Wilful killing ... Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments ... Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health ... Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement ... Taking of hostages"

and, chillingly,

"Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives".

How that resonates in the current circumstances.

There is, however, another irony from which I will not flinch: the United States has not signed up to this treaty. I hope that it does, because, without the USA, the treaty is lessened.

The bill gives nations the opportunity to act as one on the small world stage. Barbaric men and women who have committed deeds that are often too heinous to imagine against their fellow men have merged into the landscape for decades and have led the full life that they denied to others. For such people there should be no hiding place, no sanctuary and no escape from justice. They have committed crimes that will never be time-barred; for them, the passage of time, with the apparent legacy of a decent life, is no defence against their brutality.

The will and the honesty of nation states are required for this legislation to work. If man's inhumanity to man continues, as it seems that it must, those responsible for it—no matter where they are or who they are—must be pursued, judged and punished.

The bill and the corresponding legislation of other signatory nations represent a small but important start. The SNP fully supports Scotland's participation.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

In supporting the bill, I express gratitude to Mr Iain Gray for giving an important reassurance. He said that our bill and the UK act mean that there can be no possible scenario in which the ICC has jurisdiction over a British national or serviceman while a British court does not. If serious allegations are made against British servicemen, the UK authorities will examine them. There is nothing new in that situation.

During the debate, I confirmed that the bill will give hope to vulnerable communities that are threatened with harassment, persecution and terror. It serves a useful purpose and should be seen as a warning that, in the event of inhumanity rearing its ugly head, the machinery will be in place to ensure that justice is done. Whatever reservations we might have about effectiveness, cost and legal jurisdiction, we welcome the bill, whose purpose is to bring justice to those who have committed crimes against humanity, and we support it accordingly.

As the Deputy First Minister has reminded us, two days ago we learned the tragic news of crimes against humanity through murderous and premeditated attacks on civilians on a massive and unprecedented scale. That serves to reinforce our will that the bill be passed.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The stage 1 debate on the bill was aptly timed because it took place the day after Thabo Mbeki had addressed the Scottish Parliament and reminded us of our international obligations. Today, we have our stage 3 debate after the tragic events in the USA have pressed home the importance of the bill by again reminding us of our moral and legal obligations to the rest of the world.

The UK delegation in Rome has to be commended for its work. It achieved some important changes to the definition of crime that is incorporated in the statute. Articles 6, 7 and 8 make specific advances in international law and the definition of crime. The statute makes the recruitment and enlistment of children under the age of 15 a war crime. Certain sexual and gender offences are now included. The crimes of torture, enforced disappearance and forced pregnancy are now defined in the statute. Crucially, the statute now includes action by non-state actors as well as by officials of state.

We know that 120 countries have voted for the statute. I hope that the seven that voted against it will now sign up to what is an emerging consensus. It is important to note that the wealthier nations paid for 50 poorer nations to come to the discussions on the Rome statute. Let us hope that that kind of sharing of the world's resources continues.

The bill creates a permanent setting for an international criminal court. It is important to note the use of the word "permanent".

In certain circumstances, we can prosecute crime as defined in the Rome statute. That is not to be underestimated. Through the bill and mechanisms such as international treaties and extradition orders, our international law will be more comprehensive. We are signalling to others that we have dramatically increased our chances of prosecuting and convicting all those who commit crimes against humanity at whatever level they operate. Down the chain of command from the highest to the lowest, we will find and prosecute such people.

From the moment it is passed, the bill will catch every crime. That is why our Parliament has rightly been under pressure to complete quickly the stages of the bill's consideration. I thank the members of the Justice 2 Committee for their hard work.

Other important aspects of the Rome statute go beyond prosecuting crime. I will mention one. The establishment of a United Nations trust fund for victims is a crucial element of the bill. It was promoted in another place by the then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook. Those who are found guilty should pay reparations to victims. It is argued that those who abuse their power to torture or murder often abuse their power to make themselves rich.

The ICC will be a new court with new judges, new procedures and new rules. I like to think that we will not simply forget about our role in the ICC after today. We have to ensure that the development of law and the rules and procedures of the ICC follow the lines that we expect and that the good practices of the Scottish legal system can influence some of the good practices of the ICC.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I support the bill. I, too, thank the convener and members of the Justice 2 Committee, who, with the help of consultees and witnesses, conducted detailed investigations into the bill.

The bill is an important step forward in the international role of Scotland and of the United Kingdom. I believe that Scotland has played an important part by speedily ratifying the Rome statute—an international agreement to establish an international criminal court. I can do no better than quote Kofi Annan, who, after saying that the UN would do its part in realising the vision of an international criminal court, continued:

"We ask you ... to do yours in our struggle to ensure that no ruler, no State, no junta and no army anywhere can abuse human rights with impunity. Only then will the innocents of distant wars and conflicts know that they, too, may sleep under the cover of justice; that they, too, have rights and that those who violate those rights will be punished."

Those words stand to this day and hold for the process that all Parliaments in the world will, I hope, go through to ratify and implement the ICC.

The creation of the ICC is backed by the international community. It is a just means to an end, an end that the Parliament should be pleased to play a role in achieving. The Liberal Democrats firmly support the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The member has finished, I am afraid.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I am happy to support the bill fully, but I draw members' attention to what still seems to me to be a defect in our proceedings. The timetable for the bill worked much better than some past timetables have. That is good. However, all the consideration of the bill has been done by about six or eight people. They consider it in the committee. They lead the stage 1 debate. They conduct the entire proceedings of scrutinising amendments at stage 2. They also monopolise—I do not mean that in a harsh sense—the stage 3 debate.

I am sure that those people are good and that they master their subject. Those of us who have not been involved in the scrutiny of a bill are somewhat apprehensive about taking part in debates on that bill. Each party group tends to follow the spokesperson's leadership on that subject. That means that important bills, such as the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill, are the fruit of the intelligence and application of six or eight people, rather than of all 129 members.

We should consider ways of broadening the debate. For example, there could be a seminar on the main issues that have emerged at stage 2 before we have the stage 3 debate so that others will understand what members are arguing about. Our deliberations would have more democratic sanction if the debate at stage 3 were wider. That is worth considering.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Ms MacDonald, do you wish to speak? Your light is on.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I intervene at this point in the debate because, at the end of Tavish Scott's speech, I wanted to ask whether he considers that anything that we say about the bill has been affected, adversely or otherwise, by the events in the USA in the past 48 hours.

Donald Gorrie made the point that the whole chamber is involved in the bill. Although the bill is highly technical—it is about international law and international regulation—it is at the interface of humanity, politics, individual morality, international crime, legislation on that crime and orderly conduct of the pursuance of war criminals and criminals against humanity.

The events in the USA were of such magnitude that we should not only pass the bill, but pass comments or recommendations to the UK Government, which is the signatory to the Rome statute. The reason for the rush with the Scottish part of the legislation has been to enable the UK to become one of the first 60 countries to ratify the Rome statute. Frankly, I have never thought that that was desperately important. That is a personal point of view.

If the USA does not now sign up to the ICC, the court is greatly diminished, particularly in the wake of what has happened, whose repercussions for international law, commerce and the global economy we can only guess at—there are huge repercussions that we have not even considered yet.

The bill, of course, has the correct intention and will be supported by almost every member. The application of that intention may have been greatly compromised by what happened in the USA and by the USA's absolute determination until now not to sign up to the ICC.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I say to Ms Macdonald that I seem to recall that the USA recently signed up to the ICC and that it did so before Tuesday's horrific events.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

On a point of information, one of the last acts of Clinton's presidency was to indicate that the USA would take part in the ICC. That had more to do with the internal politics of the USA than with the ICC. The incoming Bush Administration said that it would not sign up to the ICC and that it would not put American servicemen in various parts of the world at risk of almost automatic prosecution.

The USA's position is crucial to whether the ICC can be implemented soon, later or at all. For that reason, I would like every member to debate the much wider question of international criminal justice. We should pass the bill—it is the technical side of international criminal justice—but we have much more to consider and, perhaps, to contribute to the UK's deliberations on the matter.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Like most members, I imagine, I am pleased to give my whole-hearted support to the passing of the bill. I remember at stage 1 hearing in another capacity somewhat grudging remarks on the timetabling of the bill. The issue is important and properly demands the attention of the Parliament.

While the bill might be described as technical, it is tremendously important. It has been awaited since the aftermath of the second world war and finds its origins in the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals. The legislation outlines a democratic response by the democratic world to acts of genocide and associated acts of violence and attack on the world order.

Perhaps against the backdrop of recent tragic events we are seeing the emergence of a worldwide consensus on the establishment of a world justice system. It is regrettable that Ms MacDonald should maintain the line that it is simply a question of the UK rushing to sign up to the Rome statute as though we were caught up with issues of status or just so that we could be involved. There is, of course, a triggering arrangement for effective establishment of the court and I dissociate myself—as I trust many members do—from suggestions of a purposeless abruptness or eagerness on the part of the UK.

Although Christine Grahame adjusted her position during the debate, it is regrettable that she had seemed to suggest exclusivity on the part of the nationalists in relation to the efficient and effective working of the ICC regime. I trust that everyone in the chamber has a keen interest in the establishment of an efficient and effective ICC regime. That is the clear will of the international community in relation to the Rome statute. It is an achievement of the democratic west. We should celebrate that achievement and not regret the fact that the chamber has shown almost whole-hearted support for the bill, which I commend to the chamber.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

It is pleasing to note that, despite our disagreements on the most appropriate form of jurisdiction, there is nonetheless overwhelming support in all quarters of the Parliament for the concept and the reality of a permanent international criminal court.

When the target date of July 2002—the fourth anniversary of the promulgation of the statute—was first mooted for achievement of the 60 ratifications necessary to establish the ICC, cynics said that that was unrealistic. I am glad that, in this case, the cynics might be proved wrong and that we will have played our part in that today.

The debate began with Christine Grahame's appropriate and respectful reference to the acts of terror perpetrated earlier this week. Although it has been made clear that the bill does not address terrorism, it is right that the debate should end in a similar vein. The truth is that there is a link between our business today and the atrocities in New York and Washington. Brian Fitzpatrick pointed out that link. Yesterday, our Presiding Officer said:

"we seemed determined to create a more civilised global society in the 21st century."—[Official Report, 12 September 2001; c 2407.]

We are so determined. The internationalisation of the rule of law at the heart of the bill is a manifestation of that determination. Like Christine Grahame, I hope that the USA, which has signed the treaty, will also ratify it in due course.

Yesterday, our First Minister said:

"let us remember quietly and proudly the values that the perpetrators of yesterday's atrocities can never overcome."—[Official Report, 12 September 2001; c 2410-11.]

The rule of law—justice—was one of those values. The combination of many domestic jurisdictions in the structure of an international criminal court and the extension of the cover of responsibility under the law to most of the world and to the most extreme circumstances of war and tyranny are marks of progress that terror might delay but cannot halt. Our small contribution to that has been delayed by 18 hours; it should be delayed no longer. I ask members to support the bill.

Scottish Qualifications Authority

David (None, Lothians)

We are running ahead of ourselves, but we now come to the ministerial statement by Jack McConnell on the future of the Scottish Qualifications Authority and national qualifications. The minister will take questions at the end of the statement as usual, so there should be no interventions.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

On 14 August, almost all Scotland's school exams candidates received accurate certificates of their examination results.

The fact that I am able to make that simple declaration today represents a great step forward. I know that members will join me in thanking the chairman of the Scottish Qualifications Authority, John Ward, the board, Bill Morton and all the staff at the SQA, and the teachers and staff throughout Scotland's schools, colleges and local authorities for all their hard work. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee helped to build consensus on the way forward, which has been of immense value in turning the organisation around. Nicol Stephen and the ministerial review group provided the scrutiny and transparency needed month after month.

Personally, and on behalf of members, I would also like to thank the many civil servants in our own education department who helped deliver this year's success. I want to highlight the role of Colin MacLean. Not many people would have accepted without hesitation the role of national exam co-ordinator. He was brave and committed when his experience and abilities were needed. I am sure that we are all grateful that he said yes.

However, I know that members will agree that, in reality, this year's timely delivery of accurate certificates simply represents a return to an acceptable standard of performance. Scotland's students have a right to expect that the country's exams system will provide them with a certificate for their hard work. They were let down badly last year. I am determined that they should not be let down again. That is why we have quickly completed a review of the current status of the SQA. A report of that review is published today. In my statement, I will describe briefly the outcome of the 2001 exams round, before outlining my decisions for the future.

At this time last year, more than 16,000 individual candidates had been affected by late or inaccurate certificates. Approximately 40,000 appeals had been submitted. The SQA was in total disarray and some said that the system was so fundamentally flawed that it was beyond recovery.

Thanks to the hard work of many people, on 14 August almost all Scotland's candidates received accurate certificates of their results. That might represent a significant improvement on the standards achieved before 2000. Those candidates who did not receive their certificates had immediate access to assistance from their schools and colleges, and from SQA helplines. Even better, the SQA was already aware of and working to resolve many of the queries.

The first success came on 4 August, when the SQA provided the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service with details of the results of over 19,000 university and college applicants from Scotland, three days ahead of schedule.

On 10 August, electronic statements of results were delivered to all the schools and colleges that could use them. That gave staff an early opportunity to prepare for the return of their students for the new term. Those statements were confirmed by delivery of hard copies to all schools and colleges on 13 August. The preparations by staff meant that the candidates who had queries about their results—a small minority—were able to approach their centres and the dedicated helplines that the SQA had set up for advice.

The SQA is working hard to resolve any remaining queries and to process appeals from those candidates whose performance on the day did not live up to expectations. I am pleased to report that the number of appeals received so far has fallen by 31 per cent, which indicates an encouraging confidence in the results awarded.

With the 2001 exams round almost complete, it is time to look to the future. Thanks to the efforts of the Parliament's committees, much of the work of consulting stakeholders in the process has been done and there is already consensus on the issues that need to be examined. We must reform the SQA and improve the implementation of national qualifications.

The review of the initial implementation of new national qualifications indicated that changes are required to make assessments by teachers more effective and focused, and to reduce unnecessary duplication of effort. I am determined to ensure that unnecessary administrative burdens associated with assessment are reduced. The national qualifications task group is advancing that issue as a priority. A sub-group to review English and communication is under way, as are SQA reviews of the larger uptakes.

A consultation document on radical changes to assessment models within the new qualifications will be published soon. The document will outline two models, although consultees will be free to propose any other suggestions. We will ensure that the implications of any changes are fully thought through before decisions are taken or changes implemented.

Scotland needs an effective and reliable awarding body that is independent of political interference and which delivers a rational and coherent awards system. Abolishing the SQA is not a credible option, nor is it an option to transfer the authority's functions to the Executive. It is important that the provider of Scotland's qualifications is seen to be independent of political pressures.

The priorities that led to the creation of a single national awarding body, the promotion of parity of esteem between vocational and academic qualifications and the creation of a coherent and integrated national qualifications framework remain key objectives for us all. It would therefore not be appropriate to break up the SQA.

Two main options were compared in detail. Although the transfer of the organisation to agency status would provide more direct lines of accountability and responsibility to ministers in respect of the SQA's functions, that would bring problems of its own. Neither of the Parliament's committee inquiries into the SQA recommended that the organisation's governance model be altered radically. Indeed, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee specifically rejected agency status.

The keys to successful delivery of the SQA's functions will be effective management and improved communications. The pressures and concerns experienced by all those involved even in this year's broadly successful process make it clear that a great deal remains to be done. That work is best done against a background of stability. The inevitable disruption associated with any radical change of status would be an unacceptable distraction, which could put delivery of next year's exams at risk. I do not believe that such a risk is justified when confidence in Scottish education as a whole is at stake.

Therefore, I have decided that the SQA will be retained as an Executive non-departmental public body, but only on the basis that we must have reform of the board, effective stakeholder involvement and measures to secure permanent improvements to management and organisation.

I will improve the monitoring of the SQA and put in place arrangements to improve its accountability to ministers and stakeholders. All that will require legislation, and my ministerial colleagues have agreed that I should produce detailed plans as soon as possible.

In line with the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's recommendation, the SQA board will be reduced to between seven and nine members. Members will be appointed by ministers and will be provided with appropriate induction and training. As recommended by the committee, an advisory body will be created, with representatives of all the stakeholders in Scottish education. That body will provide opinion and advice on qualifications and education matters, which will ensure that the SQA board focuses on governance and management. It will also allow key stakeholders an opportunity to give informed advice and comment to the SQA and ministers without the constraints that membership of the board and, therefore, shared statutory responsibility for its decisions, must impose.

The 2001 exams round has been successful, but there must be no complacency about the future. I will continue to monitor carefully the SQA's performance, and the Executive will work closely with the SQA to support it in improving its own effectiveness and continued successful delivery for 2002. The SQA's management statement and financial memorandum will be redrafted, making clear the relative roles and responsibilities of the SQA and the Executive, while setting clear priorities and objectives for the SQA. I share the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's concerns about the need for accurate management information, therefore I will also require a rigorous annual planning process, setting out the SQA's plans for delivering the exam round and other qualifications priorities each year, with agreed monitoring arrangements against those plans.

I have emphasised the importance of effective management. The process of appointing a new chief executive for the SQA is already under way, and we have begun the recruitment process for a chair and a number of other board members, because many of the current board are due to relinquish their posts in December. Following today's announcements, I will quickly review the appointments that are required and take action to secure stability and the new organisation that we want to be in place.

The successful delivery of results to Scotland's young people this summer showed that the system can, and will, work when it is managed effectively. However, the system is far from perfect and a great deal remains to be done to improve its effectiveness and to reduce the burdens on schools, candidates and the SQA. The package of measures that I have outlined today will provide the SQA, and the system as a whole, with the best possible opportunity to get back on track for the long term and will continue to restore confidence in the system. Scotland's students deserve nothing less than the best qualifications system that we can possibly provide, and I am convinced that the measures will help deliver that.

One year ago, the low point in the morale and reputation of our once-proud Scottish education system was reached. In August, we began the renewal that was required, but that was only a beginning. Simplifying the system and permanently improving the management are now our immediate goals. By tackling them, together, we can make our education system the envy of the world again.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I welcome the minister's statement and join him in paying tribute to all those who have been involved with the exam results this year, in particular the SQA chair, John Ward, Bill Morton, the SQA board, all the SQA staff, the teachers and staff in Scotland's schools, colleges and local authorities, and the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs and his team, who have worked very hard indeed. What I have to say in my question is not a criticism of any or all of those people.

I also pay tribute to Colin MacLean. I did not tell the minister too early on that Colin MacLean and I were at university together, in case it prejudiced the minister against him. The minister's tribute to Colin MacLean, however, highlights the problem with his statement. I do not know whether the minister will agree, but I think it is true to say that, to all intents and purposes, the SQA has been operating as an agency over the past year, and has needed to operate as an agency to fulfil its functions. It is obvious that the SQA will need to continue to operate with the type of support and direction that that implies throughout the next period of years. That is absolutely clear from page 10 of the minister's statement, which indicates an arrangement with a non-departmental public body that is far from ordinary.

I have three clear questions for the minister. First, if the close relationship has started to put things back on track, surely the lesson is that that close relationship will be necessary over a period of years to restore the necessary confidence in the Scottish exam system. The views that the committees took last year, sound as they were, have been overtaken by events, because it is the SQA's operating under agency status that has made the difference over the past year.

Secondly, if the aim of us all, as it has to be, is to restore normal service, surely we should have wide consultation on the status of the SQA, rather than an ex cathedra pronouncement. The pronouncement closes down debate on a matter that requires more discussion.

Thirdly, I accept that all reform is difficult and takes time, but surely it would be possible over a period of years to design a system that could make the SQA again the gold standard of Scottish education while paying attention to the clear difficulties of serving two different client groups, schools and colleges. The minister's statement in no way recognises the demands of those two client groups.

Will the minister confirm, first, that his statement means that the SQA's agency status is being changed to something else and that it does not mark a reversion to the status quo? Secondly, instead of closing down the options, will the minister confirm that we will have a consultation period to consider the options? Thirdly, instead of assuming that the needs of the different client groups are similar, will the minister ensure that the needs of those groups are addressed? Everybody in Scottish colleges and schools will tell him that the core of the problem—bringing together two organisations that never gelled in their ethos or work—still remains. That matter was at the heart of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's report.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I thank Mike Russell for his thanks and congratulations, which are much appreciated. I knew that Colin MacLean and Mike Russell had been at university together. I am always keen to embrace consensus in the chamber and to work closely with the Opposition and colleagues. I can assure Mike Russell that at no time did I see that as a difficulty for anybody.

I am happy to answer Mike Russell's questions directly, but also wish to make a general point. A number of factors made this year's exams round a success. The most consistent factor in the months between last autumn and this summer was that every decision was taken with the objective of delivering the certificates on 14 August accurately and on time. That meant that, at times, there were calls from Michael Russell and others to change the system. We rejected those calls, because to change the system during the year rather than ensuring that it was working could have damaged the production of certificates. Stability is as much a consideration as anything else. Quite apart from the principles involved, the organisational upheaval that would be required were the SQA to move to agency status makes that option a non-starter.

We need to keep our eye on the longer term. Michael Russell talked about restoring normal service. In my view, normal service in the Scottish examination system should be an independent awarding and certification body. We should keep that objective to the forefront of our minds, instead of taking a short-term decision based on the current situation.

There will continue to be a close relationship between the SQA and the education department, because that relationship has been of benefit over recent months. However, it needs to move on to a new level. The SQA, particularly the board of the SQA, needs to carry out to the best of its ability the responsibilities that it has been given. Consultation will take place on the proposals that I have set out, because this Parliament demands that in its procedures for scrutinising draft legislation. However, if today I did not make clear to everyone involved—to the staff of the SQA, to this Parliament and to everyone—what I see as the best way forward, I would be failing to live up to my responsibilities. I hope that Michael Russell will concede that I am averse to doing that.

The member pointed out that the SQA has to serve two different client groups. I believe that we have a body that can deliver exam certification and deal with assessment issues for both schools and colleges in Scotland. Our job is to ensure that it works better than it does at the moment.

David (None, Lothians)

A large number of members have indicated that they want to ask questions, so I appeal for brevity.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Conservatives, too, welcome the minister's statement—I thank him for making an advance copy available to us. We welcome the fact that the 2001 exams round was a success and join others in paying tribute to all those involved in making that happen, including the civil servants. However, we should not forget that it was a success benchmarked against the disaster that happened the previous year, under the minister's predecessor.

The minister says that monitoring of the SQA and accountability are to be improved. That is very welcome, as there are still serious administrative difficulties within the SQA. How does the minister see improved accountability and monitoring working in the future if, as he said in his statement, the SQA must be independent of political pressures?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I welcome Murdo Fraser to the front bench and to a seat that may appeal to him. I thank him for his comments. I can think of no more able deputy for Brian Monteith.

I take the point that the member makes. It is absolutely critical that we be clear about the distinction between the role of ministers and the role of those who deliver examination awards and certificates. As we have proved over the past nine months, it is possible for us to have a close relationship with the SQA that involves our assisting that body, while not overriding its decision-making processes. We were able to deliver the certificates on 14 August without doing that. As, in the months and years ahead, the SQA gradually accepts more direct responsibility and the department adopts a less prominent role, the sort of relationship that I have described can be maintained. The SQA will be independent of political control in its duties, but political responsibility will be vested in the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs and their deputy.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I offer my thanks to all the SQA staff and civil servants who worked so hard to make the 2001 diet a success. As the father of two girls who were involved in the process, I can say that we were much relieved when the results came through.

The minister touched on an issue that is raised with me constantly in schools by teachers. They believe that the assessment process through the year acts as a barrier to delivering a successful exam diet. The minister said in his statement that there would be radical changes to that process. What will be the timing of those changes? Will they be introduced for next year's exam diet, or will there be some simplification for this year's exam diet, on which we have already embarked?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am very pleased that George Lyon's daughters managed to receive their certificates. I wish that I had been in that position at 9 o'clock on the Tuesday morning concerned, but that is another story.

The required changes fall into three categories. First, there are changes that can be implemented immediately. Changes in both administration and process are currently being made.

Secondly, there are the reviews that will take place for individual subjects. The reviews for some of the larger subjects, such as English, maths and the science subjects, have begun and we want to ensure that all those reviews are completed by Christmas. If we can take any action in the second half of the academic year, we will do so, but the reviews will at least be complete long before the next academic year begins.

Thirdly, there is the longer-term consultation on the more radical options that need to be considered. There is serious concern throughout the system. Some people believe that a review of the current system will be enough. Many others believe that, at the end of the day, more radical options may need to be taken. A full 12-week consultation on that issue will begin before the end of this month. I hope that next Thursday afternoon the Parliament will have a chance to debate it.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I welcome the minister's statement and associate myself with the congratulations that have been offered to those who were involved in the successful delivery of the 2001 diet. In particular, I pay tribute to Anton Colella, who brought the perspective of the school to the heart of the SQA. That perspective had been very much lacking and its introduction to the SQA was long overdue.

It is vital that we build on the success of the 2001 diet. Success with the SQA should be a given, rather than an exception. The measures that the minister has outlined will go some way towards ensuring that. Our students need that kind of guarantee.

My first question follows on from George Lyon's, and concerns consultation. Given that much of what the minister has suggested will have an impact on the 2002 diet, how does he envisage the consultation taking place? What will be the timetable for that consultation and for what I assume will be a subsequent bill? Obviously, that will have an impact on the timetable of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.

My second question concerns the make-up of the board. How does the minister see the board shaping up, to ensure that all the stakeholders are involved much more effectively and that they are able to take on responsibilities and respond to the challenges of managing the SQA?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I repeat my thanks to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, under the convenership of both Karen Gillon and her predecessor Mary Mulligan, for its contribution to the consensus that we have managed to develop.

The consultation that took place as part of the committees' deliberations last autumn and much of the discussion that has taken place since then will contribute to the decision-making process that this Parliament will undertake before next summer. I am keen to discuss with Karen Gillon and Alex Neil the possibility of reducing the Executive's normal 12-week consultation period, so that we can move quickly to debate a full bill here in the chamber and elsewhere. We can build consensus around the proposals that I have outlined, and I hope that that happens. However, I also want to ensure that people have an opportunity to make appropriate comments on the proposals.

I remind the chamber that the current chair of the SQA board will relinquish his post at the end of this year. Some board members are due to relinquish their positions in December. We want to get the new board and the new arrangements up and running as quickly as possible. That will help to give people confidence in the system as we move towards the exams next spring.

In my view, all appointments to the new board will be appointments of people to a body that will manage the SQA. Those appointments will no longer be based on individual stakeholder interests and divided loyalties. The persons appointed will be responsible for the SQA and for the proper and efficient delivery of the SQA's work.

The advisory body will cover the stakeholders' interests and should have a wide membership and a wide remit. We want to consult in some depth before we produce final proposals on how to proceed with the advisory body.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As the convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I welcome those of the minister's recommendations that are based on that committee's report. As a general rule, I recommend to the Executive that it should listen to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee as much as possible. I particularly welcome the creation of the new board and the advisory body.

I have a number of questions. First, the committee recommended that consideration should be given to the SQA's management structure below board level. Will the minister ask the new board and the existing management to reconsider that issue and to ensure that the byzantine structure that was in place is made much more efficient and effective?

Secondly, I ask the minister to examine the remuneration and terms and conditions that are being advertised for the position of chief executive. The SQA is now so important that, to attract the right person, the status and remuneration package for the chief executive should be brought into line with those for the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise or similar quangos. I worry that the right calibre of candidate might not be attracted by the advertised remuneration.

My final two points relate to the proposed legislation. Last year, the statutory duties and responsibilities of the minister and his powers over the quango were a problem—he might recall that there was some controversy over those matters. I suggest that we build into the bill legal powers for the minister, so that he can give specific directions to the SQA if and when required. I also suggest that he should build into the bill a statutory requirement for board members, when acting as such, to give primacy to the interests and priorities of the SQA and not to any other interests that they might have. That would bring matters into line with the committee's recommendations and with normal practice in the private sector.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will consider Alex Neil's final point when we draft the bill. Let me be clear: we intend to take additional ministerial powers in the legislation, but they will not be wide-ranging ministerial powers that would allow ministers to interfere in some of the more delicate aspects of the examination system, because that would not be right and proper. We intend to take powers over matters such as the issues that were raised about the number of board meetings and the way in which the management of the board is conducted. Ministers should be able to intervene in such matters, if their intervention is required or agreed to.

The interim chief executive of the SQA and the SQA board chair are reviewing the body's management structure and are consulting my department on their review. A review committee has been established, on which a representative of my department sits. We are fully involved in the review process and will ensure that a proper new structure is put in place, although we might have to wait for the appointment of the new chief executive, to give that person a role in signing off the final structure.

I have made it clear to John Ward that I will consider positively any proposals that he might make to ensure that we get the right person in post. As Alex Neil is aware, if additional finance is required, I will not hesitate to make it available.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

What further consideration has been given to the suggestion that, in cases where both the candidate and the school are dissatisfied with the outcome of an appeal, marked examination scripts should be returned to the school for checking, so that justice is done, and seen to be done?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Mr Canavan is aware of my personal sympathy for the proposal that marked examination scripts should be made available. The SQA, which has the main role in considering that matter, has been conducting a consultation exercise and is due to consider the outcome of that consultation in the near future. I know that there are strong views inside the education service against making such a facility available. However, I still take the view that in certain circumstances, returning marked scripts might help to give people confidence in the examination results. I do not want that option, or proposal, to be taken off the agenda in the immediate future. As I said, the SQA will consider the issue and I continue to hold the view that it should be considering it positively.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

If the outcome of the consultation process is that it will be too difficult for scripts to be returned to schools, will the minister at least support the idea of using the information from the marking process for professional development purposes and to help teachers?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Sylvia Jackson made an excellent point. One of the lessons that must be learned from the way in which the marking process is administered and information from it utilised is that not enough teachers are learning from the marking that takes place each year. Even in the short time in which I have been closely involved with the exam process, it has become clear to me that there is a problem in that schools do not understand why their candidates fail to gain examination awards. We have already improved feedback to schools and will continue to do so as part of the revised marking arrangements.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I, too, welcome the extent to which events have moved on from this time last year. However, I remain concerned about one aspect of the SQA. I echo the minister's view that there should be stability for the SQA—that is extremely important for the morale of staff—but stability can induce atrophy. I am aware that one of the most helpful, if embarrassing, indicators of the extent of last year's deficiencies was the independent report that was procured by the Executive. Would it be appropriate for the current regime to consider the appointment of an independent auditor to examine existing management practices and procedures?

All is not well at the SQA. I am engaged in the case of a young constituent who is unable to secure his place at the University of Glasgow because, allegedly, his results were never sent from the SQA to that university. Accidents can happen in any organisation, but if the public's confidence is to be maintained, it is important that some evidence is made available to show that the current regime is as good as it can be, pending what might happen in future. The involvement of an external assessment procedure to help the SQA could be instrumental in attaining that objective.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

In addition to the report that the Executive commissioned—which, I agree, was central to directing some of the improvements that were required—the new chair, John Ward, whom I appointed, brought in an initiative to secure improved independent internal audit arrangements. Yesterday, during my discussion with him, he confirmed that those arrangements will continue as long as he is in post and through the transitional phase. We expect those arrangements to continue beyond that. A proper, robust internal audit arrangement within the SQA for both procedures and finances is critical. I know that John Ward is personally committed to that arrangement.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

I thank the minister for his statement on the SQA and I congratulate all those who are involved in education—particularly teachers—on the delivery of the 2001 diet.

I want to flag up the changes that led up to last year's tragedy, because the two organisations involved did not work together. That happened because there was a failure to consider the ethos of each organisation. It was clear to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee that the trade unions and the people who work in the SQA were not listened to, although they were clear—as were teachers—that the organisations were not working well together. Communication in the delivery of the diet was a problem, as was communication within the organisation. Will the minister ensure that all those who work within the SQA are involved in the consultations about the changes within the organisation?

What is the time scale for the review of national qualifications? The Education, Culture and Sport Committee heard a fair amount about young people in colleges feeling that they had been left out and there is a fair amount of difference between how schools and colleges are treated. I am interested in hearing the minister's response to those questions.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

There have been significant improvements in the arrangements for colleges, even in recent weeks. Over the past 10 months, I have been conscious of the fact that the focus was predominantly on schools and that the colleges were feeling a bit left behind. I know that the SQA is in the process of establishing a new further education advisory forum, which will be chaired by a college principal and will meet for the first time in October. The SQA has also followed up the successful secondment of Anton Colella—to which Karen Gillon referred earlier—with the secondment of John Young from the Scottish further education unit, to provide internal expertise on the further education perspective.

A number of other bodies and arrangements are being put in place that will secure improvements to the delivery of results not only to colleges, but to other bodies. Sometimes, we forget that the SQA has a working relationship not only with schools and colleges, but with other client groups such as employers, training providers and higher education institutions. We need to ensure that all those different stakeholders have the necessary input.

The SQA's current board members and I are committed to ensuring that those who have a stake in the organisation, including those who work for it, are listened to. The ministerial review group that we set up last year had a key role in ensuring that those views were taken on board and that the new advisory body will do the same.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Will the minister give an undertaking that the remit of the proposed advisory body that he announced today will include an examination of higher still? Many of the representations that I received from teachers in my constituency related to the ability of higher still to deliver. Will he also undertake to examine any outstanding cases in which individuals are still seeking resolution from the SQA for last year's results?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have some reservations about referring to individual cases from last year, although individual cases that require attention from the SQA and those who have responsibility for them will always come to light. We made it clear that some final decisions on people's awards would be made during the appeals review and that that was an appropriate conclusion to a difficult time for everybody. Clearly, there will always be individuals who are caught up in an administrative process that can leave them with longer-term difficulties. If administrative matters can be resolved to deal with some longer-term problems—in particular, for some college students—I am sure that the SQA will try to deal with that and my department will give help, if that is appropriate.

On the review of higher still, a national qualifications task force is reviewing the national qualifications, including higher still. It is my view that the implementation of all those qualifications needs to be reviewed as a matter of some urgency. The new advisory bodies are unlikely to be in place before the middle of next year at the earliest, so it is more appropriate for the task force to take forward the agenda as a matter of urgency in this academic session. However, in the longer term, I hope that the advisory body will keep a general watching eye on a range of assessment matters, not only the SQA's performance on exam certification.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I welcome the minister's statement. Will he give us further information about the impact of this year's appeals? Last year, the problem with appeals was one of the key concerns of many members. What is the present position? Can we feel confident that that position will continue for the foreseeable future?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We do not yet have figures for the standard grade appeals, which were due only recently. However, the higher appeals—including the urgent appeals—show a much better picture than the previous year. In a normal year, the number of appeals is about 20,000. We believe that the figure is in the low 20,000s this year. That is a significant reduction on the 40,000 in the year 2000. That shows that there is a renewal of confidence in the system and in the results. The certificates were delivered on time, but—equally, if not more, important—people also believe the results on their certificates.

It might be helpful for the member to know some of the up-to-date figures. This time last year, there were more than 4,000 individual appeals for higher level mathematics; this year, the figure was 1,755. For physics, there were more than 2,200 appeals last year; this year, the figure is down to 670. The fact that young students in Scotland believe the results on their certificates is the most important indicator that we have turned a corner that we needed to turn.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The minister looks relaxed and confident occupying the First Minister's seat. Perhaps he aspires to fill it on a permanent basis.

I want to pursue Dennis Canavan's point about the accountability of the SQA to the presenting centres—the schools. I understand the minister's response that the SQA is reluctant to return marked scripts to schools because that might achieve nothing. However, if by some kind of protocol the return of marked scripts to schools facilitated dialogue between the presenting centres and the appeals panels, the detailed scrutiny of the submitted appeals material might provide a substantive safety net that would improve schools' and pupils' confidence in the appeals process. I am sure that the minister has had professional experience of how there can be discordant outcomes not only from examinations but, on occasion, from the appeals process.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am sure that the SQA will examine the range of possibilities when it examines the outcome of its consultation on that issue. It is right and proper that it should do so. I made my position clear in answer to Mr Canavan's question. I do not underestimate the difficulties that the return of scripts might involve for marker recruitment and other issues, but I hope that it is being considered positively. However, I will say one thing: last year, access to marked scripts was very important because people had a serious crisis of confidence in the results that they had received. Although the pressure might now be off, the issue remains and must be addressed.

There are many other more important issues. Sylvia Jackson made an important point on how teachers can learn from the feedback that they receive on their marking of candidates' examination scripts. In the past four weeks, the real grief that I have come across about this year's results is from young people who believed that they had attained a certain standard but discovered, when they sat the final examination, that the course that they had been pursuing in their school had perhaps not been as complete as it should have been. A small minority of teachers need to learn from the results year on year. If we can get that right, we will tackle the situation in which people have high expectations that are squashed when they receive their certificate.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Further to Mr McAveety's question on the appeals system, my constituents have identified problems with the urgent appeals system, which produces results that are too late because they are beyond the deadline that universities have set for conditional acceptances. Does the minister expect that, in future years, the SQA will work with Scottish universities to match up those dates, so that young people who achieve the required levels are able to take up their university courses?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

There are a number of issues about entrance to university. Long before I was a member of the Scottish Parliament, when I was at Stirling University, I was involved in the problem of the difference in starting dates for the new academic terms. A range of issues is involved, which includes the entrance procedures of Glasgow University and some of our more traditional institutions, which differ slightly from those of the majority of universities. I hope that when this year's examination round is finally complete, Wendy Alexander and I will be able to discuss those important issues in some detail.

I am certain that further improvements can be made and I hope that the problems can be resolved between the SQA and the universities without direct ministerial involvement. I strongly urge any individual candidates who are having problems to follow the age-old procedures that have tended to resolve such matters. They should contact the university to try to get special cases arranged for them.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

As part of his reforms of the SQA, does the minister plan to ensure that a truly independent person or body will exist whose task it will be to ensure that, year by year, a consistent standard is achieved so that an exam pass indicates the same sort of ability and application year by year? There might be pressures from politicians, teachers or the SQA to have more people passing exams. That could lead to pressures to reduce standards. I hope that the minister will ensure that there is a proper system to resist such pressures.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Donald Gorrie has made that point on a number of occasions in this chamber and, I am sure, elsewhere. It is a good point. When we are trying to drive up standards and ensure that more people achieve qualifications of a higher level, it is difficult to avoid the accusation that examinations might be becoming easier so that more people pass them. If politicians were interfering with examinations in that sort of way, or if those who are responsible for examinations were inadvertently creating those conditions, that would indeed be a farce—one that I would obviously want to avoid.

Donald Gorrie makes a specific suggestion for a body that might look into this issue, even from time to time. It is possible that that will be one of the functions of the new advisory body. In our consultations, I will certainly want to consider such a function. Associated with the new body, that particular function—being performed perhaps every three years, or perhaps relating to specific subjects—could mean that independent consideration was available to reassure everybody throughout Scotland that politicians were not changing results to get good headlines.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I join other members—most of those who have spoken, I think—in thanking the minister and his team, the staff at the SQA, and the teachers and examiners. I think that most of the thanks were genuine. I did not think that the minister's statement was an ex-cathedra pronouncement, and I suspect that it would take a better man than Mike Russell to raise the minister to the episcopacy. A lot of work that was done to prepare for what it was thought would happen with this diet has been rendered redundant. Again, I thank the minister for that.

Will the minister look seriously at Dennis Canavan's point on the return of scripts and materials? Will he make that a priority in bolstering the return of confidence in the examination system? I am pleased that such a return of confidence was evidenced by what the minister said about maths appeals. Either now or later, will the minister give details on the measures of externality that will be brought into the structures of the SQA and into the oversight of the SQA so that, again, returning confidence might be bolstered?

I represent a constituency that has one of the highest graduate populations in Scotland. I was therefore especially delighted with what happened with this diet—as I am sure my predecessor would have been.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I hope that the advisory body—and perhaps some of the other measures that we have put in place in the system—will provide the sort of external scrutiny that we require. We do not see any need to continue with the ministerial review group, but the lessons learned by that group were clear—external scrutiny and transparency played a key role.

I have already made my position clear on returning marked scripts and the difficulties and the benefits that that might bring. I hope that the SQA will make a decision on that in the near future.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The Education, Culture and Sport Committee report drew attention to the difficulties that were caused by split sites, with workers being located in up to five different places. In light of the minister's decision on the status of the SQA, what investment is being committed to overcoming those and related problems? Will that support be sustained and guaranteed?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

One of the more amusing incidents of the summer involved the SQA computer back in July when, after I had wandered round the country for six months saying, "You never know what might happen—the computer might blow up," the computer, of course, blew up. We were faced with what could have been a difficulty, but I am thankful that the computer had not yet been installed so we did not lose any information. One of the reasons for ensuring that there were proper back-up facilities was to deal with the problem of split sites and to ensure that the electronic transfer of data between those sites was secure.

The issue of split sites remains and I do not think that that situation can be efficient for the SQA. I will ensure that the board considers that matter urgently. It must consider its location or locations, and it must choose the right location or locations for the longer term. We will then clearly need to discuss with the board the financial and managerial implications of that. The issue remains; it will not go away.

Parliamentary Bureau Motion

David (None, Lothians)

The next item of business is Parliamentary Bureau motion S1M-2202, on the meeting of Parliament next May in Aberdeen.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to meet in the King's College Conference Centre in Aberdeen in May 2002 on dates to be confirmed in the Business Bulletin.—[Euan Robson.]

Question Time — Scottish Executive

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

To ask the Scottish Executive what proportion of Scottish Enterprise's current budget is spent specifically on social justice issues and what steps it is taking to ensure that Scottish Enterprise is involved in supporting the Executive's commitments in this area. (S1O-3766)

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Scottish Enterprise estimates that it will spend £76.5 million during the current financial year on matters relating to social justice. Our strategy document, "A Smart, Successful Scotland", made it clear to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise that the Executive expects its cross-cutting initiatives, particularly social justice, to be at the centre of their work.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am sure that the minister will agree that it is a central commitment of the Executive and the Parliament that equality and social justice are the responsibility of all departments and agencies, not just those that fall under the remit of social justice.

Does the minister agree that all agencies and bodies funded by the Scottish Executive should play their part in using the levers of influence, power and money at their disposal to support that commitment? Recognising the potentially powerful role that Scottish Enterprise can play in a constituency such as mine, will the minister give a commitment to monitor and review progress on this within Scottish Enterprise and to consider ways in which good practice can be developed across Scotland?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I am happy to give a commitment that we will monitor and review good practice. The member might want to note that in "A Smart, Successful Scotland" we said that we were going to consult on the performance measures for the Scottish Enterprise network. The performance measures are currently out to consultation and some of them are drawn directly from the Executive's social justice strategy.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Does the minister recognise that the social justice agenda would be more deliverable if the Minister for Finance and Local Government had not recently cut—sorry, I meant to say realigned—£35 million from the social justice budget?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The general point that is being made is that social justice is the responsibility of us all. I am sure that Mr Gibson would not demur from the fact that meeting some of our objectives in health care, for example, makes a strong commitment to the social justice agenda.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister confirm that Scottish Enterprise was established to promote the economic development of Scotland? Does she agree that the best way to improve Scotland's social welfare would be to ensure a healthy business climate? On that basis, does the minister not agree that Scottish Enterprise would do better to concentrate on its core product?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The member will understand that I prefer to trace the antecedents of Scottish Enterprise to the Scottish Development Agency, which was created by a Labour Government in the 1970s. Mr Gallie points to perhaps the fundamental philosophical difference between Conservative and Labour members: we believe that social justice and economic efficiency are two sides of the same coin and not irrevocably split in the way that the Conservative party believes.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to encourage young people to take up opportunities available through the European Union's ERASMUS, LEONARDO and European voluntary service education and training programmes. (S1O-3742)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Scottish Executive currently offers regular opportunities for participation in these EU programmes to schools, students and youth groups. Regular information days and conferences are held, roadshows are planned on youth for Europe, and Eurodesk provides information and advice electronically and directly on request.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

The minister may be aware that considerably fewer young people go from Scotland to other European countries under the aforementioned schemes than vice versa—with the exception of the Republic of Ireland. Bearing that in mind, does he accept that one factor could be our poor record in foreign language teaching? What concrete proposals does he have to encourage more young people to participate in such exchanges?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I think that the problem may be foreign language learning, rather than foreign language teaching, but I agree with the general thesis. There is a problem, not just in Scotland, but throughout the UK, with the number of young people taking up those particular opportunities. I would like to think that in Scotland we could take a particular initiative that would increase participation. I would be happy to consider that.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to support the oil and gas industry to ensure that it continues to play an integral part in the economy. (S1O-3744)

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

As vice-chairman of pilot, the joint oil industry and Government working group, I take a close interest in the work to sustain a strong and vibrant UK oil and gas industry. I expect that industry to continue to have long-term importance for the Scottish and UK economies.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

The minister will be aware of the success of the "Offshore Europe" conference in Aberdeen last week. It is the second-biggest oil and gas show in the world and attracted 25,000 visitors from 78 countries. However, a major concern was raised about the impact of skills shortages onshore and offshore. If not addressed, they may impact on future investment decisions in the UK sector over the coming 30 years, when another generation of young Scots could be finding employment in the industry. How does the Scottish Executive intend to ensure that those skills shortages are tackled?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Elaine Thomson is right that the exhibition in Aberdeen was a great success. I will correct her on one detail though; 25,000 people attended from 89 countries. The spirit at that exhibition was successful and upbeat.

We recognise that there are skills shortages in the industry, which threaten it to some extent. One of the achievements of the pilot working group has been not just forecasting requirements, but ensuring that we meet the needs of the oil and gas sector. The Executive, with UK colleagues, is playing a full role in that.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Further to Elaine Thomson's question on skills shortages, does the minister agree that part of the problem is that oil companies have been too willing to downsize and outsource and in various other ways create a climate of uncertainty and a lack of confidence in the future? Will the minister take every step to encourage the industry to maintain staff levels throughout any future fluctuations?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Given the tone of Mr Adam's question, it is obvious that he has not recently engaged with people in the oil industry. He certainly could not have engaged with them at the conference last week. We appreciate that there is a skills shortage and we are addressing it.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

While this Parliament has no locus to levy corporation or windfall taxes on the industry, it can influence the competitiveness of the support businesses to the extraction sector, especially the high-tech and expanding companies in the north-east. Will the Executive give an assurance that there will be a return to uniform business rates, and an assurance that the use of the tartan tax, which would drive those small companies out of Scotland, will be avoided?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

It is worth documenting that we have no plans to use the tartan tax and that we are engaged with the oil industry at both Executive and UK levels.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made in encouraging local authorities to adopt the guidelines under the Scottish diet action plan on nutritional standards in school meals. (S1O-3768)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Responsibility for the implementation of the Scottish diet action plan guidelines lies with local authorities. However, implementation has not been uniform and consideration is currently being given to the most appropriate way to ensure that those standards are adopted throughout Scotland.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

In view of the fact that implementation has not been the same across the board, will the minister consider making the guidelines mandatory?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Creating mandatory guidelines would not be without its difficulties, but we must consider that option. Standards are applicable across the board for schools in England, and minimum standards may be appropriate in Scotland. We wish to discuss the issue further, and to ensure improved uptake and better quality. I will be discussing that with my colleagues and others in the months to come.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

What nutritional health qualifications are the suppliers of school meals to children obliged to hold?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That is a matter for local authorities, but may be precisely the sort of issue that requires discussion when addressing national minimum standards.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Does the minister share my concern about the basic hypocrisy of trying to improve school meals when schools in some of the poorest areas of Glasgow are installing giant sweet-vending machines, containing tooth-rotting material, because under Labour Glasgow cannot afford to run her schools without getting children's sweetie money?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I hesitate to dignify the question, but it requires a full response. It is easy to see some of those issues in isolation. The result of schools managing to attract more young people to stay in the school grounds during the school day is that fewer young people are involved in motor vehicle accidents in the local community, there is less litter in the local community and schools have fewer problems. In addition to healthy eating, a number of other school management issues must be taken into account.

Tomorrow I will be involved in launching the kidzcard—a very good Glasgow City Council scheme. I have to say that Glasgow City Council in particular has been taking the lead in Scotland in introducing breakfast clubs, healthy eating, fruit for every young school pupil and a number of other initiatives, for which they should be praised, not condemned. I hope to do that tomorrow morning at the Gorbals leisure centre.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

The minister answered my question.

David (None, Lothians)

Well you do not need to ask it then, Mr McAveety. [ Interruption. ] Order.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I hate to be heckled by a Glasgow sweetie wife. Glasgow City Council pioneered the provision of fresh fruit for young kids in schools, free swimming for all under-18s, and a whole range of other initiatives. Next week, at Quarry Brae Primary School, we will identify how we can support kids' healthy eating. That should be welcomed, not misrepresented. [ Interruption. ]

David (None, Lothians)

Order. I suspended the meeting for quarter of an hour. Members will be pleased to know that that was due to a false alarm. Someone was repairing the fire alarm system next door at New College and pulled the wrong wire out. It is always better to be safe than sorry.

We may find that question time is a little interrupted by the public coming back into the gallery, but we must rise above the noise. I will extend open questions for quarter of an hour and then First Minister's questions for quarter of an hour. We will see how we get on with the debate. I would still like to have decision time at 5 o'clock but it depends on the pressure on the debate.

I will not go back to Mr McAveety's supplementary question because it was not one anyway. [Applause.]

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made on simplifying the national qualifications framework. (S1O-3767)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The national qualifications task group has met twice and is taking early action to simplify new national qualifications and to reduce work load for teachers and lecturers. I will publish a consultation paper in the near future on longer-term issues connected to internal and external assessment within the new national qualifications.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I thank the minister for his response. He will be well aware of concerns among students, teachers and parents about the over-complex nature of the national qualifications framework and its adverse impact on work loads. Can he reassure me that when the task force reports, change will be implemented as speedily as possible?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I can absolutely reassure the member that any changes agreed will be implemented as speedily as possible. As I explained this morning, some specific changes will be possible this year. Longer-term changes need to be the subject of proper consultation. I am not in favour of making radical changes to the education service and our systems. We do not have consent within the system, but I believe that we can achieve consent if we conduct the consultation exercise properly. There will be changes, if changes are the outcome of the consultation.

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

I point out that some of the extra complexities of higher still, such as the intermediate levels, have worked well. Will the consultation ensure that attention is paid to what is genuinely considered to be serious over-assessment in the system and too much administrative bureaucracy?

I will introduce a little more complexity by asking whether the minister will reconsider the idea of one-size-fits-all subjects. I hope that he will consider each subject on its merits when the simplification takes place.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The national qualifications task group is currently looking at all subjects one by one, and quite rightly too. There is a problem of over-administration and over-assessment in the higher years of the school curriculum. That needs to be tackled, and I am sure that it will be tackled as part of this exercise.

David (None, Lothians)

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-15533 by Mr Jim Wallace on 14 June 2001, what heraldic conventions the flags flown from its buildings observe and whether any heraldic definition of colours for use in the national flag of Scotland exists. (S1O-3759)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Flags flown from Executive buildings are supplied by reputable flag makers, whose production techniques observe heraldic conventions. Those conventions regard such matters as size, shape, proportion and the positioning of crosses and shields.

On the heraldic definition of colours, the saltire is variously described in the public register of all arms and bearings in Scotland as an argent cross on an azure background or as the white cross of St Andrew on a blue field. Argent, as members will know, is a silver colour, although it is conventionally shown as white given the practical difficulties of using silver. It is worth noting that heraldic descriptions of the colours of the saltire are not prescriptive in their application to flags. Any saltire whose background colour is clearly blue is acceptable.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Given that the heraldic definition of colours for flags is problematic, is the minister aware that the Lord Lyon King of Arms is on record as agreeing that the definition of a colour for the national flag would best be done by the Scottish Parliament? Does not the minister agree that it is entirely appropriate for the Parliament to take a view on the recognised and approved colour of our national flag to avoid the present uncertainty and confusion about shades of blue?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I accept that it is within the power of the Parliament to stipulate the shade of blue that is to be used. It is no doubt also in our power to stipulate whether we want to opt for argent or white. However, for the reasons that I am about to elaborate on, the Executive does not believe that it would be beneficial to have such regulation. To stipulate a precise colour would mean that people who had been flying flags with different shades of blue would suddenly find that the flags that they had been flying quite properly and in all good faith might no longer fit the statutory requirement. They might find that they had been inadvertently contravening the law. Also, if one thinks about it, flags that are exposed to the elements are subject to weathering and fading, even if manufactured to a precise specification.

We fly the saltire with great pride, and it would not be to the dignity of the saltire if people felt inhibited in some way because they felt that they were not meeting a precise definition.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

As the blue of the union flag represents Scotland's proud and prominent position within the union, could not we at least guarantee that the two shades of blue are the same?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Although I am not as knowledgeable about the union flag as I am about the saltire, I imagine that the same considerations would apply to the shade of blue in the union flag as to that in the saltire.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Was the Deputy First Minister serious in his answer to Irene McGugan and in his previous written answer to me, in which he told me that regulation would be in inappropriate because "the colour and condition of flags flown outside for example is inevitably affected by exposure to weather and sunlight."—[Official Report, Written Answers; 14 June 2001, p 388.]?

Is not that as daft as saying that football clubs should not define their colours because, as the match goes on, the jerseys inevitably get sweatier and dirtier?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Mr Canavan should have listened carefully to a practical consideration. No one has ever suggested that the colours of Rangers, Celtic, Aberdeen or Dundee should be defined by law.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives of the Crown Estate and what matters were discussed. (S1O-3748)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The Scottish Executive is in regular contact with the Crown Estate on a range of issues.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I am pleased about that.

Is the minister aware that the Crown Estate removes £1 million per annum from salmon farms in Shetland and many millions of pounds per annum from salmon farms throughout Scotland? On the grounds of rural development, will she consider the proposals that the Shetland Salmon Farmers Association put to her department and the Crown Estate for a reinvestment of those moneys in, for example, environmental impact assessments, hydrographic surveys and sea bed monitoring? Does she accept that such reinvestment is badly needed and would be a positive contribution to businesses that pay corporation tax and so certainly should not pay any other tax at the same time?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am aware of those issues. The Crown Estate understands the importance of fish farming to the rural economy. Rents are kept under regular review and a significant sum is reinvested each year in support of research and development—for example, in improvements to fish welfare management and environmental practices.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Given the record of the Crown Estate in recent years in facilitating rural development, is it time to make representations to the Westminster Government to bring the Crown Estate, in Scotland at least, into public ownership and under proper democratic control?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Matters that relate to the Crown Estate are reserved. I repeat that significant reinvestment is being made in fish farming from the money that is taken in rents. We accept that the Crown Estate commissioners are acting correctly in that respect.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister assure us that moving responsibility for fish farm leases from the Crown Estate to local councils will not simply result in a heaven-sent opportunity for those bodies to levy excessive rents on the fish farm industry?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The intention is that planning controls will provide greater accountability and transparency under the remit of local authorities. We strongly believe that decision making will be brought closer to communities and that more attention will be given to potential conflicts of use and to the environmental impacts of fish farming.

David (None, Lothians)

Question 9 has been withdrawn.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the present children's hearing system is effective in respect of young offenders. (S1O-3735)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The children's hearing system has been effective and well regarded since it was introduced in Scotland in April 1971.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Does the minister agree that his perception is not shared by the police, the public or members of the Scottish Parliament? If the system is to retain any credibility, does he agree that it is essential that changes be introduced to make it much more robust?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I do not agree with Bill Aitken. It is interesting that the Conservatives were in Government for 18 years and that during that time, the issue was such a high priority for them that they did nothing about changing the system. There was nothing on the topic in the 1999 Conservative manifesto for this Parliament. As I said, the system is well regarded and is one of the best aspects of the justice system in Scotland.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I refer the minister to a reply to my colleague, Richard Lochhead, about secure places for young offenders, which disclosed that for the whole of Scotland, there were 87 secure places in 1998 and only 95 in 2000. Indeed, there have been only 12 for the whole of Lothian in those three years, and there are no places in Mid Scotland and Fife. My information from senior police officers is that the lack of secure places is of great concern and leads to inappropriate placements for young offenders. Does the minister share that concern? If so, what will he do about it?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I appreciate the fact that Christine Grahame's question is couched in a more constructive manner than Bill Aitken's. The matter to which she refers is under review. A report on the issue was submitted recently to ministers and we will consider it in detail before reporting on it to Parliament and others in due course.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

Does the minister agree that the children's hearing system has worked well for children who offend and for those who are offended against? Does he welcome the Auditor General's current report into youth justice, which covers eight to 21-year-olds, and the Justice 2 Committee's interest in the report?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Yes, indeed. The report underlines the point that I made earlier, which is that the success of the system has been such that we are considering the lessons that can be learned for older young people—those in the 18-to-21 age bracket.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether, as part of its review of cities, it intends to redraw local authority boundaries. (S1O-3765)

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The review's remit is deliberately broad. It is too early to rule any issue in or out of the review and the particular areas in which it might draw conclusions.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

Is the minister aware of the strength of feeling among my constituents in Rutherglen and Cambuslang regarding recent speculation that they might be brought out of the control of South Lanarkshire Council? As my constituents are happy with the service that they receive from the council, and given that the leader of Glasgow City Council has stated that he believes the issue to be dead in the water, can the minister reassure my constituents that such a change will not happen against their will?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The important thing about the review is that the Executive seeks to give all the people who will input to it the opportunity to raise the issues that they believe are important to cities in general and to their own cities in particular. Some people might wish to raise the issue of boundaries and that is for them to decide. We will listen to all the representations before reaching a balanced conclusion based on the interests of the cities and the regions in which those cities sit.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

Does the minister agree that any major boundary changes must take place for good reasons and with the consent of the people? Does he accept that the real problem for cities such as Glasgow and Dundee is gaining adequate central Government funding for their services? That is the problem that must be solved and it cannot be done by simply redrawing boundaries against the wishes of local communities.

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

We have no plans to redraw boundaries against the wishes of local communities or of other interested parties. We are trying to establish a review process that will enable us to take the experience and wisdom of a range of individuals and agencies and pull together a cities policy that will ensure the future economic, environmental and cultural well-being of our cities so that they continue to be places where people want to live, thrive and do business.

In the course of the review, people from different sectors and with different experiences might wish to raise a host of issues that they think are germane to the future success of our cities. We will not stop people raising with us issues that they think are important. Equally, we will not jump to conclusions about how we should proceed with policy before we have reflected on the issues that have been raised.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does the minister accept that Scotland needs another local government boundary review like it needs a hole in the head? To follow up Andrew Welsh's point, I ask the minister whether he accepts that the finances of cities such as Glasgow would be assisted considerably if cities had access to the proceeds of the business rate, which come from the investment that is made in cities.

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The cities have access to the proceeds of the business rate through the grant distribution system, which is organised in such a way that it benefits every part of Scotland and every local authority equitably. My party supports that system and I hope that every other party supports it.

In answer to Robert Brown's other question, we are not having a boundaries review; we are having a review of cities policy.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Does the minister agree that the review of cities should benefit and target resources at communities with greater needs and that, for local authorities such as East Renfrewshire Council, talk of local boundary review is an unhelpful distraction from delivering good quality services to residents?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

Members who have asked questions on this subject might have noticed that individual members, newspapers and others occasionally talk of boundary reviews, but ministers are not talking about such reviews—we are talking about a review of cities policy. We want to ensure that we develop more co-ordinated ways of developing policies and of joining up policy delivery. That could mean, for example, examining the ways in which local enterprise companies, health boards, local authorities and others deliver the kind of services that require them to act in concert rather than in silos. That type of action can benefit our communities, irrespective of the level of funding, the boundaries or other issues. We have not ruled anything out. We want to hear what can be done better or differently.

David (None, Lothians)

Questions 12 and 13 have been withdrawn.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to measure the continuing economic impact of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in the south of Scotland. (S1O-3760)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The economic impact assessment group, which I set up in March, continues to meet and provides a valuable contribution to the ministerial committee for rural development sub-group in informing the actions that we take to provide assistance. The group has already commissioned two impact surveys and I look forward to seeing its third report early this autumn.