Scottish Parliament, 15 November 2001

370 contributions from 79 members. The official report.

Introduction

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill

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

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2445, in the name of Jim Wallace, on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which is UK legislation, and an amendment to that motion.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Earlier this week, the Government introduced the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill in the House of Commons. The genesis of the bill needs little explanation. The terrorists who struck at New York struck at us all. They killed without discrimination, and those who died were men, women and children of all ages and of many nationalities, races, and religious and political persuasions. It was truly an act of terror.

Tragically, we are not strangers to acts of terrorism. However, 11 September saw the manifestation of a threat of terrorism of a scale, audacity, single-mindedness, global reach and disruptiveness that we have not previously faced. It is therefore right that we respond not only to the actual act, but to the threat of similar outrages. The recent advances that have been made in Afghanistan do not diminish that imperative; indeed, they may arguably increase it.

On this issue, we walk a fine and difficult line. We aspire to tolerance and respect for all and to uphold fundamental civil liberties. However, to do so, we must deal with those who exploit our liberties with threats to life and limb. I do not say that that is easy; however, it is inescapable.

The Executive believes that the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill is a proportionate response to the events of 11 September. It is not a wholesale revision of our legal and security framework, but a collection of carefully targeted improvements.

The bill has a number of strands. First, it enhances information disclosure to aid policing and prosecution; it enhances financial controls in much the same way as the Proceeds of Crime Bill; and it strengthens existing asylum and immigration powers. Secondly, the bill contains new criminal offences on religious hatred, corruption, weapons of mass destruction, associated hoaxes, and failure to disclose information about terrorist offences.

Thirdly, the bill requires enhanced security for the storage of pathogens, civil nuclear installations, and airports, which form the tools and targets of the new terrorism. Fourthly, the bill enhances policing, with new powers on DNA and fingerprint evidence; an extended jurisdiction for British Transport and Ministry of Defence police; and extended access to passenger information. Finally, the bill allows for fast-track implementation of any European Union agreements on justice and home affairs.

I will now deal with the devolved provisions that we recommend be included in the Westminster bill and those that we propose to exclude. That is the purpose of our debate this morning; we are not debating aspects of the bill that are clearly reserved and would, in any circumstances, be a matter for the United Kingdom Parliament. That is why the SNP amendment is not appropriate.

Our rationale for a Sewel motion is essentially pragmatic. We do not think it acceptable to delay these matters until the introduction of the criminal justice bill next year, and we do not think that emergency legislation of our own is appropriate for proposals that are unlikely to differ on either side of the border. It is right to move quickly and, as far as possible, on a common UK front.

We recommend that the enabling power on EU criminal measures be extended to Scotland, which will allow Scottish Ministers to introduce secondary legislation on devolved, criminal, police and judicial co-operation initiatives. That safeguards this Parliament's role and strikes the right balance between parliamentary scrutiny and the ability to legislate quickly when necessary.

We recommend that the bill's provisions on dangerous substances be extended to Scotland, which will make it an offence for a person to use nuclear, biological, chemical, radiological or any other noxious substance, or to threaten to do so.

We recommend that the bill's provisions on disclosure of information be extended to Scotland. The provisions will enable Government departments and other public authorities to disclose information for possible criminal investigations or proceedings. The Parliament has already passed a Sewel motion on this in relation to the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. However, the measures were dropped and are now being reintroduced with some modifications.

We recommend that the new powers relating to the security of premises holding harmful substances be extended to Scotland. The powers are primarily designed to address security arrangements at laboratories where there are stocks of potentially dangerous substances such as viruses, bacteria and toxins. The substances will be specified in secondary legislation and examples of the new controls are given in the memorandum that accompanies the Sewel motion.

We recommend that the new police powers on passenger information be extended to Scotland, which would enable the police to request information in relation to ships and aircraft arriving anywhere in the UK from any other country. The current powers are limited to travel between the UK mainland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

We recommend that the extension of powers for the MOD and British Transport police be extended to Scotland. That would extend their jurisdiction so that they could assist other police forces on request. Members will recall that the Parliament previously approved this approach for the MOD police, but the proposals were subsequently dropped from the Armed Forces Bill.

We recommend making use of the bill to allow fingerprints and samples that are taken under Terrorism Act 2000 powers to be used in the investigation of the whole range of crime. That will ensure that links can be drawn between terrorist suspects and other criminal acts that might have terrorist connections.

I will now address the aspects of the bill that we do not wish to be extended to Scotland. First, we will pursue a distinctive approach on religious hatred. I shall chair a ministerial working group with cross-party representation and a remit to report by the end of February. The Deputy First Minister has written to invite the Commission for Racial Equality and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland to participate in that group. We intend to invite others to participate and will of course consult widely. Our aim will be to ensure that any new legislation is workable and effective in the Scottish context. In the meantime, we will deal with religious hatred firmly under the current law. Religious aggravation already exists at common law in Scotland.

Furthermore, because of different rules of evidence and procedure in Scotland, we have decided to introduce international corruption provisions in our own criminal justice bill, which will be introduced next year.

Finally, we have decided not to extend to Scotland the new police powers to remove face coverings. The police in Scotland were lukewarm in their support for the proposal and pointed out that there could be practical difficulties, for example, with some forms of traditional dress. In the circumstances, we believe that the benefits would be marginal. The UK bill will be amended to exclude Scotland from this provision.

We consider the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill to be a proportionate and carefully targeted piece of legislation. With the three exceptions that I have mentioned, we commend its extension to Scotland and I therefore invite the chamber's support for this Sewel motion.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the urgency of enhancing anti-terrorist capability and security in the current international situation and agrees that the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill specified in the Scottish Executive's memorandum that relate to devolved matters should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

At the outset, I should thank the Executive for arranging yesterday's briefing by officials on the Sewel motion, which helped to clarify some issues. However, although I am very grateful for those 40 minutes, they led me to question the extent to which the officials themselves had been consulted by Westminster. It was clear that the consultation has lasted only a matter of weeks, not months.

People will argue that this is an emergency. However, that argument would have considerably more force if we were not being presented with Sewel motions almost weekly. Everything cannot be an emergency and, given the number of Sewel motions that come before us, it will soon be difficult to ascertain when we are dealing with a genuine emergency.

All the Sewel motions that we deal with are not emergencies—in fact, they are anything but. The minister referred to the fact that two issues that are included in the memorandum that accompanies the motion have already been the subject of Sewel motions. On those occasions, the Scottish Parliament was asked to allow Westminster to legislate on our behalf on devolved matters, yet Westminster did nothing of the sort. One could argue that if we had gone ahead with appropriate Scottish Parliament legislation earlier this year, instead of having Sewel motions, we would have been ahead of Westminster in the game. However, we are considering the two issues again and it could be argued that parliamentary time was wasted earlier this year to no great purpose. For the record, the SNP abstained on one of the motions and voted against the other—we are therefore consistent in our arguments.

We will vote against today's Sewel motion for two main reasons, both of which are points of principle. First, there is the question of the continued use of Sewel motions. As I said, the Parliament is repeating itself. It seems that we are beginning to import some of Westminster's redundancies and inefficiencies. The procedure has become a matter of course. A startling development is that, when it comes to amending a Sewel motion, the onus is beginning to be put on those who do not think that such motions should be used, when it should be the other way around.

Let us be clear. The Scotland Act 1998 sets out the constitutional framework within which the Scottish Parliament operates. There is a clear distinction between devolved and reserved matters. For obvious reasons that do not need to be repeated, criminal justice is one of the most clearly defined matters. Westminster's handling of Scottish justice matters over many decades was beginning to cause major concern. Issues were not addressed speedily and simply finding out what the law was could be difficult. It was scattered around in bits of legislation that had Scottish clauses tacked on, or was contained in the now infamous law reform (miscellaneous provisions) (Scotland) acts that became too many to mention and were distinguishable only by the year in which they were passed. That was meant to stop. I regret that we are fast heading back to such a situation.

According to the Labour party, Donald Dewar could say or do nothing wrong. He said of devolved areas:

"there is a possibility ... of the United Kingdom Parliament legislating across those areas, but it is not one which we anticipate or expect."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 28 January 1998; Vol 305 c 402-3.]

What was unanticipated and unexpected has turned into the 25th Sewel motion and the fifth that deals with law and order—the quintessential devolved area. When the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill goes into standing committee at Westminster, we will be lucky if one Scottish MP is on the committee and lucky if that MP knows about Scots law. So much for scrutiny. There will be precious little of that, although it has always been a professed virtue of the Scottish Parliament's procedures.

The motion deals with fundamental matters of criminal procedure, which should themselves undergo the utmost scrutiny. For example, the Scottish Parliament should decide whether specific offences are required in respect of hoaxes or whether existing common-law offences in Scotland are sufficient.

I have focused on the general concept of Sewel motions. A number of measures may require to be introduced in the light of the current international situation; I do not argue with that. However, the Scottish Parliament is perfectly competent to deal with all the matters in the memorandum and to debate them in the detail that might be necessary and with the scrutiny that is absolutely necessary.

Another aspect of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill is the rather vexed question of the extension of detention without trial. There is some irony in the Sewel motion being in the name of the Minister for Justice, who is not in the chamber. I suppose that he might be rather embarrassed to have had to attach his name to the motion.

On Monday, when the bill was introduced, Simon Hughes MP said in a Liberal Democrat press release:

"Everybody must have the right to have their detention reviewed by the courts. Government plans to deviate from the European Human Rights Convention and to detain people for as many as five years goes far too far."

I agree. That a coach and horses is being driven through Scottish procedures is bad enough, but the procedures seem to be being torn up wholesale. That it is proposed to do so without reference to this Parliament is even worse. That it is expected that that can be done without so much as a cheep from this Parliament is the crowning insult.

The Blunkett proposals have, not unreasonably, been described as a return to internment. Leaving aside the dubious historical experience of internment, I will just say that the detention will, in effect, be enforced by certification by the Home Secretary.

Another politician said:

"The Prevention of Terrorism Act ... allows an extension of detention not by the judiciary but by the Executive.

It must be accepted, as it was accepted when the power was introduced, that prima facie the power is offensive to the basic principle of the rule of law, which is that deprivation of liberty should be through the courts and not through politicians."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 10 March 1993; Vol 220, col 972.]

I could not have put it better myself, which is strange, given that I do not normally agree with Tony Blair, who said that when he was in Opposition.

I do not argue that certain measures may not be necessary in the current circumstances. However, there is no practical reason why we should not legislate where that is necessary. Some proposals in the bill extend to all criminal investigations, not just to terrorist-related offences. We have procedures in this Parliament that would expedite matters. It is right that this Parliament has the opportunity to make its position clear on the single most controversial aspect of the bill. For those reasons, I ask members to support the SNP amendment.

I move amendment S1M-2445.1, to leave out from "and agrees" to end and insert:

"calls on the Scottish Executive to bring forward legislation dealing with the relevant devolved matters, if necessary under the Parliament's emergency bill procedures, in order that there can be proper consultation with the relevant authorities, companies, agencies and organisations in Scotland, and furthermore notes with concern the new proposals in regard to detention without trial in clauses 21 to 32 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill which are a suspension of the normal Scottish criminal justice procedures and which would breach the European Convention on Human Rights."

James (Conservative, Lothians)

In general, I welcome the anti-terrorism measures, which deal with a range of domestic security issues, and thank the minister for the briefing on the bill's details, which I received from officials. However, we believe that there may be a need for sunset clauses to expire after 12 months, rather than the period that is specified in the bill.

We support the Sewel motion and want to be constructive and supportive wherever possible, but we have reservations about certain clauses in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. We have specific concerns about three major areas of the bill, which our colleagues in the House of Commons will no doubt raise.

First, we will oppose in their present form the clauses on incitement to religious hatred and will support other measures to protect vulnerable faith communities. Our objection is based on the fear that the bill has serious implications for freedom of speech, which we seek to uphold. I am reassured by the minister's comments that that issue will be dealt with in the Scottish Parliament.

I am extremely concerned by the real threats and attacks on the Muslim community. On Monday night, I was present at the reopening of the Edinburgh mosque that had been the subject of a criminal attack. The reopening was a triumph in the face of adversity. We will strongly support the section on religiously aggravated offences and other measures to protect vulnerable communities.

Secondly, the Home Secretary should be able to take steps to remove dangerous foreign nationals from the country rather than have to use indefinite detention powers. The Government has used the excuse that to deport such suspects contravenes article 3 of the European convention on human rights. However, France has entered a reservation against article 3 and can deport foreign nationals who are a threat to national security. If France can act in the best interests of its security, we can, and should, do so too.

Thirdly, we will oppose the measures to implement EU third-pillar decisions—those relating to justice and home affairs and foreign affairs—by statutory instrument. To allow such decisions to be implemented through secondary legislation would restrict Westminster's power to scrutinise legislation fully and remove its power to amend it readily. Of course, if decisions are made between police forces for joint investigation of terrorist plans or conspiracies to commit crimes, we would support EU third-pillar action if it is specifically aimed at preventing terrorism.

Members may be aware of a recent article in Scotland on Sunday that recounted the tale of a young Scot of Muslim origin. In the article, which alleged that the man was a member of the Al-Muhajiroun organisation, he said that it

"would not bother me in the least"

to shoot a British soldier. I am a former Territorial Army soldier of 10 years' service, and it seemed that those remarks constituted very bad manners After all, the British armed services exist to protect the people of this country, and literally hundreds of Muslims and British people were murdered in the unprovoked attack on the World Trade Center. There can be a narrow line between freedom of speech and incitement to commit a crime. I recall that a friend of mine once prosecuted an American for threatening to assassinate the President, because the American had said that, if he was called up to serve in Vietnam, the first person he wanted in the sights of his rifle was Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was President at the time. That case went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, which decided by five rulings to four that the American had been exercising his right to free speech—however, it was a close-run thing.

As the matter has given rise to some public concern in Scotland, I commend the wise words of Councillor Bashir Maan, a Glasgow Labour councillor and Scottish secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain. He spoke in an enlightened way with foresight and vision, saying:

"I have consulted the theologians, I have spoken to the Imams, and they have assured me that the teachings of the Koran are clear—you must not take up arms against a country you have accepted as your home. Here in Scotland we have the freedom of speech and freedom to practise our religion which we can use to voice our concerns. You can demonstrate, you can express your fears, but you cannot do that by taking up arms against the country to whom you owe allegiance."

In saying that, Bashir Maan was not only speaking for his community, but speaking to Scotland.

We will support the Sewel motion today.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

One of the advantages of belonging to a governing party is that one is briefed by the Minister for Justice rather than by officials on these occasions. I thank Jim Wallace for his briefing and I imagine that, in his capacity as acting First Minister, he is involved this morning in carrying out the affairs of the country.

The Sewel motion comes before the Scottish Parliament in the aftermath of the 11 September atrocities and in pursuit of the war against terrorism, and it is quite understandable that the Government should seek to strengthen measures that will aid the prevention and detection of terrorist crimes. Ensuring the security of the citizen is the first duty of the state, but it is seldom a good idea to pass laws in haste or in times of raised passions. Not infrequently, the result can be bad, ineffective, unworkable and unjust law.

My colleague Simon Hughes, to whom Roseanna Cunningham referred earlier, described the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill as

"a mixture of the welcome, the reasonable, the worrying and the completely unacceptable."

As Roseanna Cunningham said, the bill proposes detention without trial—internment—based on a certificate from the Home Secretary. The courts are to have no powers to review the matter, but there will be an appeal to a body called the special immigration appeals commission—a sinister-sounding title if ever there was one. If I understand it correctly, the appeal would be not against the detention as such, but against the finding that the detainee was a suspected terrorist. Quite what purpose such an appeal would serve is unclear, as a certificate from the Home Secretary is conclusive on most of the key matters.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Does Mr Brown acknowledge that, although the use of the word "detention" is correct, the bill proposes a detention that can be ended at any time by the decision of the person involved to leave the country? The detention is intended to avoid the necessity of deporting someone to a country where they might be tortured or executed. That puts a slightly different gloss on the arguments that are being presented, although I do not deny that there are arguments to be made.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I accept the minister's point; however, the front page of the bill carries a bold declaration from Mr Blunkett, certifying that the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill are compatible with the European convention on human rights. I am troubled as to how a measure that expressly abandons the protections that are given by the ECHR can be certified as being compatible with it.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I, too, noticed that point. The bill can be interpreted as compatible if a derogation to remove parts of the ECHR takes place, which has happened in the past few days. Is not that, in itself, worrying?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I agree with Fiona Hyslop. That is the point that I was trying to make.

The detention power is the "unacceptable" part of the bill, to use one of Simon Hughes's words. I will pass over the power to seize the money of someone whom David Blunkett regards as a terrorist. What concerns me is the broad and ill-defined nature of some of the proposals. For example, a sentence of five years in prison is proposed for someone who fails immediately to disclose information that might be of material assistance in preventing an act of terrorism or in arresting someone who commits, prepares or instigates an act of terrorism. Lawyers know that they have to be careful with the word "instigate", as it has rather wide connotations, particularly in this context.

The principle is that these laws protect our democratic society. There are no major arguments—not even Roseanna Cunningham came up with one—about the measures in the Sewel motion on which this Parliament requires to authorise Westminster to legislate. They are largely criminal investigative measures of a sensible kind and provisions for better national and international co-ordination. Jim Wallace's decision to exclude from the motion the power for the police to remove face coverings is right, as the basis for that power was unclear and the measure seemed designed to cause offence for no particular gain.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Will the member give way?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Will the member give way?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I have given way a lot already.

The general point is that the tradition of freedom under the law runs deep in this country. It is the key strength of a liberal democracy and means that we have no arbitrary arrests, no detention without trial and no punishment without due process of law. Nothing could be more fundamental. We have always defended those rights, except during the world wars and the unfortunate experience of internment in Ulster.

In the first world war, the hysteria of war led to the internment of innocent aliens of German, Austrian or central European origin and the execution of shell-shocked soldiers after a perfunctory court martial procedure. The second world war saw the ridiculous spectacle of the internment of enemy aliens, some of whom were living in exile here as refugees from foreign Nazi or fascist regimes. In America—this is particularly pertinent to our debate today—Americans whose families had been in the country for generations but who looked vaguely eastern or Asian were interned in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbour.

We are prepared to support the Sewel motion because it makes sense in terms of the devolution settlement. We are not happy with the time scales and believe that the matter would bear close examination by one of our justice committees. Whatever the nit-pickers in the SNP might say, this is not a matter of major constitutional importance. However, there is cause to examine whether the Sewel motion procedure might be improved to allow a tempered and studied response by the Parliament through its committees when Westminster makes proposals that overlap our jurisdiction.

Our approval of the motion should not be regarded as approval of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. This Parliament guards jealously its human rights, which are built into its constitution and soul. We do not support measures that take away those rights or tear up sections of the ECHR as if they were of no account. We should not do so, even given the heightened mental state of the country.

We support the motion but have reservations about what is happening at Westminster as regards the major aspects of the bill.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

I am one of those people who do not like the over-use of Sewel motions. I agree with Roseanna Cunningham that we have a distinctive system and that, as a general rule, matters that are devolved should be decided here. However, there are a number of important points in relation to this motion.

Many of the issues that we are dealing with are a response to the catastrophic events of recent weeks. That means that things will happen at a quicker pace than they otherwise would. I always like Robert Brown's speeches, but some of what he said today was irresponsible. To compare the sort of issues that we have been dealing with in the past month or two to internment during the first world war is to make an improper comparison. We are living in dangerous times and certain things need to be dealt with quickly.

I do not like the fact that we seem to be dealing with a lot of matters that are reserved.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Is the member saying that the provisions of the bill do not involve internment without trial?

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

No. A lot of matters in the bill are reserved issues and that is one of them. Detention is controversial. It is open to legitimate debate—certainly to debate on whether it should be renewed annually. That is not a matter for the Sewel motion.

A Sewel motion is about which devolved matters should be dealt with at Westminster. I do not much like a debate on such a motion being used as a device to reverse the situation and becoming a debate on issues that belong elsewhere. I do not like the idea of a Sewel motion becoming a device to revisit the devolution settlement. Michael Russell shakes his head at that, but that is what happens. Reserved matters are legitimate topics for debate, but are not to do with what the Sewel motion does.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will Gordon Jackson give way?

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

In a moment.

Most of the matters that we are asking Westminster to deal with are good legislation. I take Robert Brown's point on that. Roseanna Cunningham could come up with almost nothing that she did not like about the legislation covered by the Sewel motion.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Yes I could.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

She says that she could, but the best that she came up with was the matter of hoaxes. If people make hoax calls and frighten others about the dangers of terrorism or biological warfare, that is a serious matter. I am happy for us to deal with it quickly by the method proposed.

A balance must be struck— My voice has gone this morning; my throat is bad.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will Gordon Jackson give way?

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

Yes please.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does Mr Jackson accept that, as long as the Parliament refuses to speak up on and take control of the big issues, we will continue to see trivia about the personal lives of politicians on the front pages of our papers instead of the issues that matter to the people of Scotland?

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

That question moves us into the surreal. I do not accept for one moment that the Parliament deals with trivia and I do not suggest that we should not deal with big matters. A Sewel motion should not be a device to consider issues that are not part of the debate.

My time is almost gone. The most important point is that we are not dealing with certain issues under the Sewel motion. The Executive recognises that it is appropriate to deal with those issues here, rather than to put them through the Westminster system. The bill contains provisions that recognise that. For example, we are not applying the provisions on bribery and corruption in part 12 for the good reason that those provisions involve evidential procedure issues that have a peculiar Scottish dimension. Perhaps more important is the fact that the race and religion provisions in part 5 will be dealt with here, not because the provisions in the Westminster bill are bad—unlike Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, I do not think that—but because there is a particular Scottish dimension to those matters, culturally and legally. We will tackle those matters here, take into account all the interests in Scotland, consult widely and deal with the issues as we think best.

That shows the balance. Where it is appropriate to put provisions through the Westminster system in a Sewel motion, we will do so for good, responsible reasons. Where there are matters that we should deal with here, we will do so. The motion and the proposals in the bill strike that balance. Although I agree with Roseanna Cunningham that we need to be careful with Sewel motions, we have the balance right in this instance. We should agree to the motion.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

A simple statistic says it all. If we pass the Sewel motion today—I hope that we do not—the Parliament will have passed 25 Sewel motions. We have only passed 23 items of legislation. Sewel motions are now not the exception, they are the norm. We ask others to legislate more often than we legislate ourselves. Those are the simple facts of the matter. That alone should make us pause to decide what to do today.

I agree with Gordon Jackson—this is the only point on which I will agree with him—that Sewel motions are a possible and legitimate tool, on occasion and in specific circumstances. In the early days of the Parliament, the Sewel motions that we discussed were agreed among the parties because they dealt with small matters of legislation in a larger United Kingdom bill. That was true of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill, small changes under the Representation of the People Bill and the small details of the Insolvency Bill.

However, what we are asked to do in passing this motion is different. We are asked to approve a major item of legislation with enormous impact on Scotland on the basis of an hour-and-a-half's debate and a vote at 5 o'clock.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

rose—

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Allow me to develop my argument, please.

To pass such legislation in such a way is the wrong thing to do for three clear reasons. The first is not to do with the Parliament, but to do with the country. Scotland, as the minister said, is not immune from a terrorist threat. It is absolutely right that the Government of Scotland engage the people of Scotland in debating the appropriate response to the present international situation. That is happening in every country in the western world and beyond. As members know, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and I were in Canada last week. There, a major piece of legislation on terrorism is working its way not just through the federal Parliament, but through the provincial Parliaments. That is the way in which the Canadians are deciding on their response to the world in which we now live. This Parliament is being denied the right to do so by the Scottish Executive. The Executive is denying Scotland the right to do so. When the Scottish Government is asked how it is going to respond and how Scotland is going to respond, its answer is incredible. Its answer is, "somebody else will do it for us".

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

rose—

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will let Mr Brown intervene in a moment.

We cut out the possibility of engaging Scotland in the debate and getting the whole-hearted support of the people for measures that may be necessary to defeat worldwide terrorism. I can understand that the Labour party may be more concerned with internal matters than with the governance of Scotland, but surely the obligation on that party is to lead Scotland, not to abrogate its responsibility.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does Mr Russell accept that he is once again raising the constitutional issue in a debate on a Sewel motion? Does he accept the constitutional settlement for the purposes of the bill? Is he suggesting that particular measures in the bill are significant policy matters within the powers of the Scottish Parliament that should be dealt with here, rather than accepting the considered view of the justice department and the Executive on the matters that they have said should be sorted out in this way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I have just made that point. The most important issue—I will repeat it in simple terms for Mr Brown—is to engage Scotland in the debate, not to cut Scotland out of it. In that way, we will get the full assent of the people of Scotland to the measures that may be necessary.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

rose—

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sorry, I will not give way. I must make progress.

A second, strong issue arises. There will and must be appropriate developments in Scottish institutions to take account of the changing world. The Sewel motion does not allow those institutions to change. It freezes the debate. It says that such decisions are always made elsewhere, as in Gordon Jackson's remarkable contribution. Such decisions are not always made elsewhere.

An obligation is on us to consider the best response for Scottish institutions and allow them to change and develop. That is being denied in the debate, which is entirely wrong. We will be left with a set of devolved institutions that have not responded and that Scottish democratic politicians have not been able to help to develop.

There is a third, even stronger reason to be worried about the Sewel motion. If we pass it, we will assent to certain measures that are anti-democratic. We are a small European country. We value liberty greatly. We have assented to the European provisions on civil liberties. By passing the Sewel motion, we will be saying that we no longer care about those provisions. I regard it as astonishing that the Liberal Democrats, who have a strong track record in such matters and are saying in Westminster what I am saying, should say it in this Parliament, but that their votes should not follow their voice.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

rose—

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sorry. I will not give way to Mr Smith.

What happens, as usual, is that the Liberal Democrats say, "We have some objections, but we're not going to do anything about them." There are three strong reasons to be worried about what is happening in the Parliament today. There are three strong reasons why we should pause before we agree the motion. For me and for the SNP, there are three strong reasons why we should oppose the motion.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

It is sad that we have to have the debate at all. We should all think about the circumstances that lie behind it. On that basis, Gordon Jackson's comments, which reminded us of the reasons why we are debating these issues, are important.

It is also sad that SNP members seem to be using the constitutional argument again. I acknowledge their feelings about Sewel motions, but the SNP has to acknowledge that, on occasion, there is a need to legislate on a UK-wide basis. We see regularly in the chamber that SNP members cannot get into their heads the fact that we are still part of the United Kingdom.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I accepted the fact that there are occasions on which we need to legislate on a UK-wide basis. Does the member believe that there are more occasions on which we should do that, than occasions on which we should legislate ourselves? The figures that I gave showed that there are more occasions on which we allow other people to legislate than occasions on which we legislate ourselves. If he agrees with that position, why did he bother to get elected?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The member has already acknowledged the amount of legislation that has gone through the Parliament. Legislation is not pushed through on a whim after deciding on a title; a lot of thought and detail lies behind each piece of legislation.

The fact is that there are 72 Scottish members at Westminster who consider issues that affect Scotland. They will have a major role to play when the bill comes before the UK Parliament.

I take up Roseanna Cunningham's comments. She suggested that we would be lucky to get one Scottish member on the committee that considers the bill. I expect more than luck to be involved; I expect there to be Scottish members on that committee. I expect the Scottish Executive to use its influence to ensure that that happens.

I turn to the wider issues in the bill. A number of ECHR issues come to mind. A constriction is placed on the Scottish Parliament. Under the Scotland Act 1998, as I understand it, it is not permissible to debate in the Parliament a number of the issues in the bill because they would contravene the ECHR. That is not the case in the UK Parliament, which allows members there to consider the issues on a wider basis.

I was pleased to hear the minister comment that the religious aspects of the bill will be dealt with in the Scottish Parliament. I believe that we could make grave mistakes if we were to take the line that David Blunkett is considering. We have only to consider the complications of our laws, the difficulties that the police have in bringing charges and the difficulties that we have in finding time in courts for serious offences to recognise that we must debate thoroughly that issue in the Parliament when the time comes.

I said that it was sad that we had to have this debate. There is, however, always a silver lining. I believe that we can take advantage of the legislation to freeze assets. We have all expressed concerns for a long time in the Parliament about the way in which drug dealers and other serious criminals accrue massive wealth, but seem to go untouched. It is my recollection that one of the Sewel bills that we passed would allow the UK Parliament to legislate in the area of freezing assets on a UK basis. Perhaps the bill will give more impetus to the freezing of assets not only in terrorism, but for drug dealing and serious crime.

I say to the minister that there are advantages and disadvantages to deportation. There could be advantages to rejecting and turning back individuals who are likely to cause massive disruption and problems in our country in the long term. At the same time, there is another element. As I understand it, one of the objectives of the war in Afghanistan—a war in which Scottish soldiers and airmen are involved—is to put countries in a position in which they are obliged to surrender to other legal systems individuals who have erred on the terrorism trail. If we were to take up an automatic deportation stance in every instance, somewhere along the line we could lose out on the opportunity to keep a known terrorist in a place in which we could identify him as being so and have him available for extradition.

Finally, I have a hypothetical question for the minister that is perhaps relevant to the ECHR. What would happen if we had bin Laden in Scotland today and the Americans applied for his extradition? Would Scottish law allow us to extradite bin Laden to America?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Nobody disputes that what happened on 11 September was an abomination, that the world has changed irrevocably—as numerous people have said—and that some legislative changes will be required. However, two matters must be addressed. First, how do we bring those changes into Scotland? Secondly, how do we ensure that the legislation that is brought in reflects our distinctive culture, nature, geography, demography—and whatever else? Things are distinct and different here. The one-cap-fits-all solution for the United Kingdom does not go well here. One just has to look at the use of statistics for the Terrorism Act 2000 to see that what is necessary for the greater London area does not reflect, and is not required for, the situation here.

We must make two points. The first is about the use of the Sewel motion, the second is on the question of detention. On the Sewel motion, there should be a presumption that wherever the Parliament is competent or capable we should address matters and legislate here. That should be taken as read, not simply because the matter of the Sewel motion is within our competency and capability, but because it impinges on and affects other bodies and institutions. We are competent in this matter and capable of acting on it. Failure to do so will impinge on our distinctive legal system and police forces, which will be fundamentally affected by what is happening in Parliament on this matter.

It is not just a matter of saying that we have competent and capable people within the chamber—there are many, whatever the tabloid press might think. We also have competent and capable people within our legislative and police networks. Just yesterday we appointed a new Lord President and a new Lord Justice Clerk. Lord Cullen, the Lord President, is highly thought of, not only within Scotland, but throughout the UK. After all, not only did he do the Piper Alpha report, he was also taken down to do the report on the Ladbroke Grove rail disaster and he has done an array of other matters. For a panoply of matters the cry was, "Get in Lord Cullen. He is the best man that there is." Yet what are we saying here? We apparently do not have the knowledge to consider the terrorism matter distinctly and individually. We will just take on a plate what comes from down south. Not only does that impinge upon Parliament's ability and capability, it also fundamentally impinges on the ability and capability of others in other institutions that are equally important and valid in our society.

It also fundamentally affects our legal system, because our ancient and modern law has taken the view that detention without trial must be considered extremely seriously and avoided at all costs. I am always amazed—as are others in the chamber—by the limited knowledge that Scots have of their legislative system. Those such as Gordon Jackson and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton will have had jury trials where people did not know that we have 15 jurors and that we do not have opening speeches. That is understandable, because the mass media is geared towards a system that reflects what happens south of the border or in the United States. People know more about those legislative systems, irrespective of "Taggart" or "Rebus". However, when we as a Parliament take this stuff just willy-nilly, it is no wonder that individuals in Scotland do not know about their distinctive legal system. All that we get fed by those in power is, in fact, a system from elsewhere. If we want to make sure that people know—

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

Will the member give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Yes.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

I have listened to what Kenny MacAskill has said in his great defence of the Scottish legal system, but can he tell us—leaving detention aside—what proposals in the Sewel motion he regards as destroying in some way our distinctive legal system?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We cannot ignore the matter of detention—that is fundamental. The whole ethos of detention refers to such matters as Magna Carta. The fact is that, in terms of our legal system, the 110-day rule is sacrosanct—as Gordon Jackson knows. That rule has been applied for centuries and generations because the view has been that people should not be detained eternally without trial. That is why the 110-day rule is a cardinal aspect of our legal system. This motion is ripping that up and throwing it away. We cannot accept that. We have now, in our modern age and after great debate—whatever Phil Gallie and others might have thought—invoked the ECHR because we viewed that as a fundamental tenet of where we Scots see Scotland in the new millennium and in the 21st century. We brought in those individual rights to add to and bolster our legal system. By introducing detention without trial through today's motion, we are ignoring that. Detention without trial is anathema. We are a western, northern-European democracy, so let us consider which other ECHR countries are bringing in such measures. Is detention without trial being invoked in Sweden or Finland? Is the Republic of Ireland introducing it? That country has problems with terrorism equal to ours, but it is not rushing to introduce these measures, because it is considering matters.

Who in Scotland would we be dealing with through the imposition of detention without trial if they cannot be deported or extradited and dealt with by an international criminal court, and if they cannot be found guilty of a criminal offence in this country? Imposing it means passing a Sewel motion, which undermines the jurisdiction not just of the Parliament, but of our legal system. Detention is fundamentally wrong, not just in Scotland and in the context of Scotland's legal history, but in any modern democracy.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am convinced that, if we are to have effective anti-terrorist legislation, it is important, even essential, for that to be dealt with on a UK-wide basis. That is right and proper in the case of most of the issues concerning devolved matters, such as how to implement European justice and home affairs council measures on the new powers relating to the security of premises holding harmful substances and on police powers to access information about passengers.

As Gordon Jackson and others have said, we have not heard from the SNP to which detailed points of the Sewel motion its members really object and think should not be dealt with by the Westminster Parliament. It is right that most of the devolved matters concerning the effects of the anti-terrorism legislation should be dealt with at Westminster, but some of the provisions in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill would not suit that approach, because Scotland's circumstances are different to those that obtain south of the border.

In particular, the religious hatred provisions of the bill are not appropriate here. That is why Jim Wallace, the Minister for Justice, has decided that we will not use the Sewel motion for the measures that are proposed in that area. Why are those measures not appropriate? Because they do not work. Such legislation is in place in Northern Ireland, but it does not work and people are not prosecuted under it. It is completely ineffective, and simply pays lip service.

My colleague, Donald Gorrie, has introduced a draft bill to the effect that, if someone uses religious intolerance in aggravating an offence, it should be treated appropriately. That is the most appropriate approach, not the creation of new criminal offences for which nobody is prosecuted; that is a ridiculous approach. I am delighted that Jim Wallace has decided not to take us down that most ineffective of routes. We need to tackle religious hatred through the route offered by Donald Gorrie—through the aggravation of offences. I would appeal to the Minister for Justice to consider adopting Donald Gorrie's bill and progressing it.

I turn to Roseanna Cunningham's comments. She—quite rightly—referred to my Westminster colleague, Simon Hughes MP. There are real objections to the subject matter of the UK bill. Namely:

"There is not an expiry date for the majority of emergency powers in the bill. This is unacceptable".

The emergency powers in Northern Ireland have to be renewed every year. Furthermore,

"emergency powers restricting liberties"

could only be supported by parliamentarians

"if they have strict time limits and are in place for the shortest possible time."

I was quoting my colleague, Simon Hughes.

Robert Brown highlighted the authoritarian nature of some aspects of the bill being considered at Westminster, such as the removal of ECHR provisions. We have discussed internment without trial. In fact, we are to have internment, by a politician, without trial. I have to take issue with Gordon Jackson: I found his comment on this point rather bizarre. The idea that somebody here who cannot be extradited because they face torture or death might simply decide to leave of their own volition, and that that is quite all right, is a bizarre approach.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

That was the minister's point, not mine.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I stand corrected. Gordon Jackson's comments were not bizarre; the minister's comments were bizarre. I am glad that Gordon corrected me on that point, and I apologise to him. It is quite correct that, if blame is to be apportioned, it should be apportioned properly.

The Liberal Democrats support the way in which we are tackling the issue. Most of the measures are reserved and are, quite rightly, being dealt with by the Westminster Parliament. There are many devolved provisions that should be dealt with by the Sewel motion, and there are two or three that will not be covered through the Sewel device. We will debate those fully in the Parliament, so that we can have Scottish solutions to Scottish problems.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We were all shocked by the events of 11 September. It is right and proper and responsible that the nations that make up this state take action to protect themselves and their citizens and contribute to international anti-terrorism efforts. The prevention of terrorism, as an aim, is undoubtedly a good thing. However, it does not automatically follow that any legislation on the prevention of terrorism will automatically and undoubtedly be a good thing. It needs to be tested and challenged and, after two months of preparation, to have only a day or two of consideration on the Scottish areas affected is not acceptable.

We have two areas of doubt with regard to the proposed legislation. We have doubts about how we deal with the devolved aspects of Scots law, and we have doubts about the internment proposals in the UK bill. We have serious concerns on a point of fundamental principle regarding the right to trial and the effectiveness of detention without trial. We have serious concerns about the effect of that on the Scottish criminal justice system.

Furthermore, I am concerned about the human rights aspects. Other members have dealt with and will deal with that matter, but I ask members to reflect on what other nations, for example the United States, are doing. The new anti-terror laws being adopted there allow foreigners awaiting deportation or charge to be detained for only seven days. That is different from what is being proposed in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, and we should reflect on that.

I will turn to the legislative aspect. Gordon Jackson and Mike Rumbles, for example, have asked what parts of the Sewel motion we are opposed to. I will make it quite clear. It would not matter if SNP members were to support all aspects of the areas that the Executive wants to give over to Westminster—that is not the subject of the debate. The debate is about whether we should consider those aspects in this chamber or allow them to be considered down at Westminster. If some members do not understand that, no wonder 25 Sewel motions have been passed unopposed by the Parliament.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Fiona Hyslop makes an absolutely correct point: that is exactly the purpose of the debate. The question that members have been asking is why, therefore, so much of SNP members' time has been devoted to discussion of a matter that is manifestly reserved and manifestly not the subject of today's debate.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Exactly. The motion before us is printed on page 23 of the first version of today's business bulletin. It is interesting that the Executive recognised overnight that, had it left the motion as it was, without reference to the Executive memorandum, it would itself be allowing and instructing the UK Parliament to cover aspects relating to all devolved matters.

How is detention without trial practised? Does it not involve the Scottish police forces? Does it not involve the Scottish criminal justice system? Of course it affects devolved matters. If ministers themselves suddenly recognised, only the night before, that they had to reduce the scope of their motion, they are recognising the danger that the Government is turning Sewel motions into a pick-'n'-mix. Ministers have chosen the bits that they want—and I am pleased that they have taken responsibility for crimes of racial hatred—but that is still a pick-'n'-mix. They cannot treat Scottish legislation and the Parliament in that way.

We must ensure that we have responsibility. We have been consistent in our arguments. We opposed a Sewel motion sometime last year when we were considering a question relating to the military police. Either we take responsibility for our actions seriously, or we do not. This is a very serious matter.

I would challenge the Conservatives: if they consider the list of provisions that they would want to oppose at Westminster, they will find that those cover the areas covered by the Executive memorandum. Would it not be better if the Parliament's justice committees had more time for consideration of such matters? The Scottish Conservatives should remember that they have only one MP. Are they seriously saying that they can better defend Scots law with one Tory MP at Westminster than the justice committees and the whole Scottish Parliament?

We must guard our Scottish justice system jealously and we must guard our citizens from attack. The two things are not mutually exclusive. The Scottish Parliament can and should deal with issues for which it is responsible under the Scotland Act 1998. I fail to be convinced that we should not take up those responsibilities. I am not convinced by the arguments that the Scottish Executive has made in the chamber, because we can and should deal with these issues.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Like many members—including, perhaps, even Roseanna Cunningham—I had hoped that John Sewel would participate in the proceedings of this Parliament as a member. I agree that we should be careful in handling the parameters of the devolution settlement and when scrutinising business such as today's.

We have heard Mike Russell's arithmetic, but we do not measure legislation by arithmetic. The Parliament can make judgments on Sewel motions, and I urge members to make a judgment on this one. When making such judgments, we must be mindful of the circumstances in our country. This is not a question of being ahead of the game or of giving way to Westminster. The imperative of finding terrorists and preventing their attacks requires energetic use of all the legal authorities and instruments that are available. We must ensure that civil liberties are not the first casualty of war, because terrorist attacks threaten more than the tragic loss of individual lives: some terrorists hope to provoke responses that undermine our democratic systems of government. As political leaders, we must find an appropriate balance by adopting counter-terrorism policies that are effective while recognising and respecting the democratic traditions that are the bedrock of our strength. I, for one, am not sure what the position is. However, I am pretty confident that it is not the same as the position in 1993.

Combating terrorism should not be used as a pretext for discrimination against any segment of society. Terrorists often claim to act on behalf of ethnic groups, religions or even entire nations. The Irish Republican Army used to say that it spoke for people with surnames like mine. It never did. Claims of that sort are always false.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

In Northern Ireland, where internment was used most recently, it allowed the IRA to profit by taking refuge in the sympathy of the local population. Is that not a risk inherent in all internment procedures?

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

There is such a risk. No one can be happy about the extension of powers of detention, although we do not need to accept everything that Kenny MacAskill said in his outburst. I am mindful of the fact that the Government has sought to build safeguards and checks into the legislation. I recognise also that we and our Liberal Democrat partners differ on this issue on principle.

I understand that under the procedure that is proposed at Westminster a certificate will be issued on the basis of evidence presented to the secretary of state by the intelligence services.

There will be a right of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, which will include a High Court judge. It is possible that Kenny MacAskill will be lucky and that Lord Cullen will be among those to hear such appeals. However, I suspect that objections would then be made to the participation of Scottish judges in UK-wide activities. The commission will be able to examine the circumstances of the case before it and certificates will be reviewed on a six-monthly basis. I am mindful of the concerns regarding detention, but I am also mindful of the Government's legitimate attempts to make—

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Yes.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Can the member give me an idea of the quality, origins or standard of evidence that will be used in these hearings?

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

If Lloyd Quinan would like me to, I would be happy to spend a couple of hours later helping him to answer that question. He may be asking whether guilt will need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. I accept that different measures are applied in cases of the sort that we are discussing. Those measures were upheld recently by the House of Lords in the Rehman case. I refer the member to that case, the terms of which I am sure he is familiar with.

As an individual member of the Labour-Liberal Democrat partnership, I am somewhat upset that we do not intend to accept the bill's provisions on incitement to religious hatred. I do not see any difference between the threats and abuse that Muslim constituents of mine face in Bishopbriggs and the threats that Muslims in Bradford and other places face. However, I am conscious of the need to find consensus on that issue. We should see what we can do to tackle it in Scotland. I ask the minister to let us know what progress is being made in that regard.

Our position is different from that set out by Phil Gallie. I do not intend to support measures that would offer people the prospect of going only to countries where they faced torture and death. That seemed to be Phil Gallie's view. I know that he is obsessed with the ECHR, but we are dealing here with an obligation that we have, not under the ECHR, but as United Nations members. We must raise the level of debate on this issue.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Clearly, the principal issue at stake in this debate is the rule of law. In any state that is governed by the rule of law, if the state wishes to deprive someone of their liberty, it should prove the necessity of that. If someone is suspected of being an international terrorist, they should be put on trial for that crime. The principal issue that we are debating is the suggestion that there should be detention without trial.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

None of the SNP members who have spoken so far has accepted that the issue of detention without trial has nothing to do with the Sewel motion that we are debating, which would not affect that issue one iota. In other words, the issue of detention without trial is being used as a device in this debate. Does Lloyd Quinan accept that?

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I refute that totally. The principle that I am discussing is the right to a fair trial. The motion refers to a bill that would remove the possibility of fair trial from a number of people. For that reason, the issue of detention without trial is relevant to the debate.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

rose—

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I will not take an intervention at the moment from Mr Gray.

Historically, the use of detention without trial in this country has been a singular failure. The use of internment in Northern Ireland, where there was no burden of proof whatever, resulted in the arrest of 340 people in a 24-hour period, 160 of whom were released within 36 hours. A number of people who were arrested under those powers went on to win cases in the European Court of Human Rights against the British Government on the ground that they had been detained without trial.

During the Falklands war, members of the Argentinian armed forces who were living in this country were interned. That was a war. As Gordon Jackson pointed out, the circumstances in the first and second world wars that led to the use of internment were very different from the circumstances now.

Article 15 of the European convention on human rights, which allows states to seek a derogation from article 5 of the convention, says that such measures may be taken

"In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation".

Clearly, we are not at war, as there has been no declaration of war. There was a declaration of war during the first world war, the second world war and the Falklands war. The use of internment in those circumstances is radically different from its use at a time when no formal declaration of war has been made.

We must, therefore, assume that the derogation is being sought under the provision that refers to a

"public emergency threatening the life of the nation".

How does the direct threat to the life of the nation of Scotland at this time differ from the threat to this nation during 35 years of war with the Irish Republican Army? During that period far more casualties were caused in the United Kingdom by the actions of the IRA than by the actions of any other terrorist organisation, but the British Government did not require to seek derogation from the ECHR or to introduce a rolling programme of internment without trial.

The real issue here is the requirement that the special relationship be maintained. The United States wants one individual extradited. Under current British law, that individual cannot be extradited, so we are seeking derogation from an international treaty to allow the British Government to hand over people to a country that has the ability to issue a death sentence, which is entirely contrary to United Nations conventions. That is the principal reason that we are discussing this issue.

As members have said, in the past week much has changed in the conflict in the Hindu Kush. Do we face the same level of threat that we faced last week? If so, I would like the minister to tell us exactly what the threat is. Is it greater than the threat that we faced during the 35 years of attacks on the mainland of this country by the IRA? If so, let the minister tell us that right now or state clearly his reasons for not providing us with a straightforward answer to the question, "What level of evidence will be required for the power of detention to be invoked?" If the minister cannot do that, I must simply say that the bill will be bad law, which will have been rushed in as a knee-jerk reaction to a particular event. For the Government, the most important thing is that the bill will seal the special relationship between the poodle and the lamppost of the United States and the UK.

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

We now move to wind-up speeches.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

As some members have said, today we are discussing not the wider implications of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, but the Sewel motion. I am concerned about the process that we use for such motions. Perhaps the Procedures Committee will consider, in early course, how the Parliament deals with them. Before Sewel motions come to the Parliament, committees should have as adequate an opportunity to scrutinise them as they normally have with other motions.

My concern arises from the truncated time scale to deal with the Sewel motion, which relates to a major piece of Westminster legislation. The bill was published on Monday; today, Thursday, we are considering the Sewel motion. The bill includes 125 clauses, which run over 70 pages, and an additional eight schedules, which run over a further 41 pages. I am concerned that such a complex bill is being rushed through Westminster with a time scale that is inadequate for proper consultation and scrutiny. It would be preferable if the Scottish Parliament had more time to consider the Sewel motion.

As Robert Brown remarked on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, it is important to remember that our support for the Sewel motion should not be taken as support for the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. I do not agree with the concluding remarks of the minister's opening speech, in which he stated:

"We consider the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill to be a proportionate and carefully targeted piece of legislation."

Given the derogations from the European convention on human rights, the bill is not an appropriate and proportionate measure. Lloyd Quinan made some valuable points about how the level of risk will be defined. Once the bill is enacted, how will the passing of that risk be defined so that the bill can be removed from the statute book? The fact that the bill contains nothing to indicate how that would happen is extremely worrying.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I have only four minutes. I have used up half my time already and am barely started.

Human rights are fundamental. They are not a menu from which the Government can pick and choose at will. The purpose of human rights legislation is to protect us from the will of Government. Detention without trial is not acceptable to me as a Liberal. I agree with John Wadham, the director of Liberty, who says of the bill:

"The Government intends to jail people not for anything they have done, but for what the Home Secretary thinks they might have done or might do in the future. This punches a hole in our constitutional protections—and the Government can only get away with it because they're using it against foreigners."

That is an important point. He continues:

"Why is it that none of the other 40-plus European countries that have signed the Human Rights Convention feel they have to do this?"

I agree with those points. I also agree with my colleague, Simon Hughes MP—although only to an extent; he should perhaps have gone further—who said on Monday:

"Everybody must have the right to have their detention reviewed by the courts."

That is an absolutely fundamental human right, which must be kept. He also made the important point that we Liberal Democrats

"shall seek to build the broadest possible political coalition to ensure that we do not give up on democratic or human rights at home, just at the moment when we are so energetically campaigning for them abroad."

The problem with the SNP's amendment is that it shows that the SNP does not understand the constitution. This morning's debate is not on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. Even if the Parliament were to debate the bill and vote against it, that would make no difference because Westminster could still pass the bill; the measures that cause us concern—such as detention and the derogation from the European convention on human rights—could still be passed by Westminster, whatever the Scottish Parliament says. Today, we are debating only what is in the Sewel motion, which we need to consider on its own merits.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

No, I must conclude.

The bill contains 10 proposals that relate to devolved responsibilities. The Executive has said that three of them will not apply to Scotland and the Parliament has agreed to Sewel motions on two others in the past. That leaves us with only five. Of those five, it makes sense that information on passengers, European justice and home affairs legislation—which would be subject to scrutiny by this Parliament—security of premises and dangerous substances should be dealt with consistently on both sides of the border. Indeed, I tell Roseanna Cunningham that premises in my constituency have been subject to a number of hoax packages and threats, some of which occurred even before 11 September. We know the need for the bill.

I have some concerns about the bill's provisions on DNA and fingerprinting, but such concerns can be dealt with when the bill is considered at Westminster. I support the Sewel motion. However, I believe that we need to review the process for Sewel motions and I ask the Procedures Committee to do that. I have concerns about many of the reserved matters in the bill, but those are not matters for debate in the Scottish Parliament. Those matters will be vigorously opposed by the effective Opposition at Westminster, which is the Liberal Democrats.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I shall deal with the amendment presently, but it is appropriate that I begin by expressing the genuine regret from all parts of the chamber that the bill is necessary. The reasons for the bill are self-evident. As Iain Gray said, an uneasy and difficult balance is required, but it is essential to defend our interests. The reality is that the lives of our people are under threat.

Some may advance the argument that we have been too soft for too long. However, our view on civil liberties is that our basic fairness has deterred us from taking such steps before now. The events of 11 September demonstrated that others have no such inhibition. We will support today's motion, but our colleagues at Westminster will oppose certain aspects of the primary legislation.

Let me turn to the SNP's amendment. The best way to destroy one's case is to overstate it. Basically, the SNP is fighting on the wrong issue. I know that SNP members sincerely hold the view that there are too many Sewel motions, but I suggest in the strongest terms that today's motion is not one with which they should take issue. The issues are far more serious than the SNP's wish to revisit the devolution settlement.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does Bill Aitken accept that when Winston Churchill introduced emergency powers legislation, as a result of getting a bullet in his Afghan coat when attending the Sidney Street siege, he laid the basis for a whole series of acts, such as the prevention of terrorism acts, all of which were passed without adequate debate? To deprive this Parliament of contributing to the debate will lead to bad law and to all the consequences that my friends have mentioned.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

We are debating the motion today. I do not recall that there was any request from the SNP's business manager for a longer debate on it. I am sure that such a request would have been granted, had it been made.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

She did ask.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The member states that the SNP business manager did ask for a debate. Even so, the SNP has the facility to use its own time to debate the matter. It is obvious that the SNP would do that if it considered the issue sufficiently important. In the main, the SNP has failed to address the serious issues.

However, Kenny MacAskill was right to deal with detention, as that is an important matter. All of us are uncomfortable with the concept of detention without trial. As Brian Fitzpatrick pointed out, however, an appeals mechanism will be put in place to cope with the inadequacies of such a system, so there will be a safeguard. Obviously, we would prefer there to be no detention without trial but, with the safeguard in place and in view of the present situation, we have no option but to go ahead with that.

The Liberals' contribution to the debate has been characteristically idiosyncratic. They appeared to object to the terms of the bill but, in their usual supine manner, they will support the Executive's Sewel motion. Most people would find the Liberals' position a little inconsistent, but—after all—we are talking about Liberals.

Of course we all wish that we did not need to debate this serious matter. When the bill is considered at Westminster, the Conservative representatives will take issue with a number of aspects. We are unhappy with the clauses on the incitement to religious hatred. We would defend the liberties of vulnerable faith communities, but we think that those provisions are perhaps unnecessary.

We argue that, rather than invoking the powers of detention, the Home Secretary should take steps that would allow him to remove dangerous foreign nationals from the country. That would answer many of the worries and it would get those people out of the country, perhaps preventing terrorist outrages. Such issues will have to be addressed.

It is unfortunate in the extreme that SNP members should have chosen such an issue on which to advance their well-documented detestation of Sewel motions. This is a united kingdom, and will long remain a united kingdom. If we were to legislate separately, and if there were inconsistencies between English and Scottish legislation, a chaotic situation would result. That would do no one any good whatever.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Bill Aitken appears not to have been in the chamber on the numerous occasions when SNP members have made many of the same points about previous Sewel motions as we are now making about this Sewel motion. Indeed, I managed to refrain from doing a simple cut-and-paste job on previous speeches; I have changed the words this time for the sake of my sanity. We have made this argument consistently and we will go on doing so. It is about the fundamental constitutional settlement for this Parliament. Every Sewel motion, by its existence, goes to the heart of that.

I go back to Donald Dewar's comment—which I notice no Labour member has mentioned—that it was not expected that we would deal with Sewel motions very often. In fact, we are dealing with them practically every week. Something that Donald Dewar did not expect to happen has, indeed, happened.

In my opening remarks, I should have said that we applaud and support the Scottish Executive opt-outs. We look forward to Executive proposals on religious hatred. I concede that that will be a difficult issue, but we must consider it in a Scottish context. However, the same argument can be extended to the remainder of the proposals in the Sewel memorandum.

James Douglas-Hamilton reminds us that detention without trial—or, more properly, internment—will apply only to foreign nationals. I appreciate that the Government has tried to draw the terms narrowly. However, I am not sure that that narrowness helps in the current situation. The pool of potential detainees remains pretty large. They will all, I presume, be Muslims. On past performance, the majority of people who are picked up will be innocent of the charges—or the not-charges of the current proposal. That means that, in one part of the bill, we may do something that we are trying to avoid in another part, with regard to racial aggravation and hatred. The bill will focus on just one religious group in this country.

Iain Gray's astonishing intervention, when he said that detention could be ended by the individual's leaving the country, was unworthy of him. If he had thought a little more carefully, he might not have got to his feet. What he said implied that, if a person was wrongly suspected, that is too bad. That is a bit like witch-finding: bind them with stones and throw them in the water—if they sink they are innocent but if they float they are guilty. Heads the accuser wins; tails the accused loses. The proposals will put people in that ludicrous position.

To Gordon Jackson, I say that much of the memorandum does not necessarily relate directly to current international circumstances. We know that because at least two of the items under discussion were proposed nine months ago and were dealt with in previous Sewel motions. Please do not let anyone argue that everything in the memorandum is an emergency response to the current situation. It is not.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

I am not saying that the bill is all about an emergency situation, but I still ask Roseanna Cunningham what parts of the Sewel motion are really objectionable in principle.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

That does not really matter.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

As my colleague says, that does not really matter. I have already spoken about one part of the memorandum as an example; Mr Jackson chose to forget that and pretended that I had taken it in isolation.

Robert Brown said that the SNP continually uses Sewel motions to raise constitutional issues. He rather misses the point. Does he not understand that the very introduction of a Sewel motion is a constitutional issue? Having a Sewel motion means that we are arguing for a departure from the agreed constitutional set-up. That is the point. Mr Brown also spoke about onus. He is saying that the onus is now on us to say why we should not depart from the constitutional set-up of this Parliament, instead of its being on the Executive to say why we should depart from it.

I am not arguing that certain measures in the bill are not necessary. However, there is no practical reason why we should not legislate on them in this Parliament. I note that some of the proposals extend to all criminal investigations, not just to terrorism. That is an aspect that Gordon Jackson may have wished to consider. Some issues in the memorandum could be commented on. For example, secondary legislation will now be used to implement European Union decisions. The Parliament may have wanted to consider that in a bit more detail—perhaps the Tories would have had something to say.

As for hoaxes and special statutory offences, there is a continual debate in this Parliament about whether the existing common law is sufficient or whether we need more specified offences. I would have thought that Gordon Jackson—a leading Queen's counsel, as we are continually told—might have had something to say about that.

We could reasonably have debated a number of the issues in the memorandum. However, we have had only 24 hours to consider them. Perhaps Gordon Jackson's brilliance allows him to master, in 24 hours, every item in the memorandum, but I suspect not. The point is that we cannot even have a proper debate about the issues, simply because of the way in which the memorandum has been presented. That is why I am asking for support for the SNP amendment.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I acknowledge—I will return to this point—that the bill is large and complex. Roseanna Cunningham is right: it deals with many important issues, some of which are very difficult. In normal circumstances, such matters would not proceed without lengthy and protracted scrutiny. However, these are not normal circumstances, as we all agree. The Government decided that the attacks on New York and the associated risks warranted a quick response—although not a rushed response. Two months have passed. That is not a long time but it means that this is not an immediate or knee-jerk response. The Executive supports that robust and comprehensive UK response to the terrorist threat.

It is important to put on record once again that the bill does not represent a rewriting of our legislation on terrorism, criminal offences or policing. Such an overhaul certainly could not be conducted properly in the space of two months.

The bill is a targeted collection of specific measures. It is true, as Roseanna Cunningham says, that some of those measures have been considered previously, as they were thought to be of use. However, the point is that they are now more urgent. That is why they are included in the bill.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

May I ask the First Minister—the First Minister! That is perhaps too soon, although on the basis of last week it may not be. May I ask the minister whether his remarks also apply to the aspects of the Sewel memorandum that will extend to all criminal investigations, not just to those that are connected with the current international situation and international terrorism?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The clauses to which Roseanna Cunningham refers deal with issues where there may be a connection between terrorist offences and criminal offences. For example, under the Terrorism Act 2000, DNA and fingerprint samples may be taken. The changes that we want to make will mean that fingerprint evidence taken from a stolen vehicle may be cross-referenced to records taken during previous terrorism investigations. Terrorism and ordinary criminal activity are linked.

The bill tries to fine-tune and make more effective the existing legal framework in different ways. In the circumstances, its introduction is not inappropriate. I made it clear that on issues to which we want, and there is a reason for, a distinctive approach, we have effectively opted out of the Westminster bill. I am pleased that nearly every speaker has welcomed that. The issues that require a distinctive approach are religious hatred, corruption and the removal of face coverings.

Because we do not see the need for a distinctive Scottish approach on the other measures, we have sought to proceed with them by way of a Sewel motion. In the circumstances, the advantages of a rapid UK-wide approach take precedence. It is extremely important that it is open to the Parliament to amend in future any of the proposals that we sanction today for inclusion in the Westminster bill. The fact that we are using a Sewel motion does not mean that we will somehow lose our competence to legislate on such matters. Roseanna Cunningham is right that some of the measures—on hoaxes or the others that she referred to—might require further examination, with more time and perhaps the consideration of amendments. That is entirely within the power of the Parliament.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton quoted Councillor Bashir Maan. I take this opportunity to associate the Executive with Councillor Maan's remarks on UK citizens who encourage other UK citizens to take up arms against their country, which is deplorable. Councillor Maan expressed his views on the issue eloquently, as we heard today.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

During the past number of years of troubles in Northern Ireland, UK citizens urged other UK citizens to take up arms against Britain. Why did we not have similar legislation during that period?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I said that I deplored those actions, and I deplore them in the circumstances that Lloyd Quinan describes.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Roseanna Cunningham mentioned the power to implement European Union measures by secondary legislation. I have two points on that. First, the bill will provide an option, not an obligation, to use secondary legislation. Secondly—I repeat an earlier point—with devolved matters, the power is an option that would be exercised by Scottish ministers, so it would be subject to the scrutiny of the Parliament, although scrutiny of secondary legislation is different from that of primary legislation.

I reassure Phil Gallie that if Osama bin Laden were captured in the UK, including Scotland, it is our understanding that he could be extradited to the United States of America. When murderers have been extradited to the USA in the past, an undertaking that they will not be subjected to the death penalty has been given—that is what allows them to be extradited. In any case, New York state does not have the death penalty, although I am not 100 per cent certain of that. I believe that the situation that Phil Gallie described is resolvable.

The people of Scotland expect to benefit from the same protections that the bill will provide for the rest of the UK. They would not appreciate the constitutional niceties of an approach that could leave Scotland behind in time or in the rigour of the measures. The Scottish people would prefer us to compromise on our powers of legislation rather than to risk compromise on their security.

I think that the people of Scotland would be surprised and baffled by the SNP's arguments. The SNP argue that the devolved aspects of the bill are so important that we need more time to debate them. I agree that those aspects of the bill are important. However, the SNP used the time that it had to debate those measures, first, to debate the procedures of the Parliament—legitimately, in respect of a Sewel motion—and, secondly, to debate an issue over which we manifestly have no legislative power, as it is a reserved matter. Charged with that, Stewart Stevenson claimed that the devolved matters involved are trivial issues of less interest than tabloid gossip. Which case is the SNP arguing?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the minister give way?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

No. I am sorry.

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

The minister is in the last minute of his speech.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Which is it? Are the issues so important that we should spend more time on them, or are they unimportant, the only issues that matter being the reserved ones, over which we do not have legislative power?

We are not being asked today to pass the measures in the anti-terrorism legislation; we are being asked to allow the UK Parliament to legislate in devolved areas after it has considered the legislation. We are certainly not being asked to extend powers of detention—we do not have that legislative power. I have made it clear that I support that extension. Other members have made it clear that they do not support it, but that they will still support the Sewel motion. That is an entirely consistent position. I can only assume that those members have confidence in their Westminster colleagues to do their job when the time comes. The question that has to be posed is why the SNP has so little confidence in its famous five, whom it sent to Westminster to stand for Scotland. They were going to stand for Scotland, yet Michael Russell says that they will be cut out. They will presumably be cut out because of the ineffectiveness of their voice in Westminster.

The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill will help to undermine terrorist finance and it will prevent abuse of our immigration and asylum procedures by international terrorists. It will discourage the use of dangerous substances and associated hoaxes. The bill is a major one, but the circumstances are such that we are right to use the Sewel convention to move forward quickly and consistently throughout the UK. That must be our paramount concern. That is what Scotland's people would accept and it is for that reason above all that I commend the Sewel motion to the chamber.

Scotland's Natural Heritage

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

We move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion S1M-2444, in the name of Ross Finnie, on the Executive's vision for the protection and promotion of Scotland's natural heritage. There are two amendments to the motion.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Scotland's nature is at the heart of what makes our country special. If we diminish it, we diminish our quality of life and our nation's future. That is why earlier this year we published our policy statement "The Nature of Scotland". We wanted to set out our vision for the protection and promotion of our natural heritage. We consulted widely on the policy statement. The huge response proved how many of Scotland's people share our vision. We want to build on that support in taking the proposals forward.

In "The Nature of Scotland" we recognised that our natural heritage is the fruit of many centuries of human stewardship. That wise stewardship needs to continue if natural interests are to be safeguarded for future generations. The pressures are increasing. We are committed to supporting and rewarding those who care for Scotland's natural heritage, but at the same time, we shall enable effective, hard-hitting action against those who seek to damage or diminish the natural wealth that is Scotland's greatest asset.

That action will include new legislation. We announced recently that we intend to produce legislative proposals at an early opportunity and a draft bill will be published as soon as possible. We are committed to protection of our land in a way that reflects the interests of those who use it and those who live on it.

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

Many members will welcome the intention to legislate to introduce prison sentences for those convicted of serious wildlife crime offences. Will such legislation be introduced in this Parliament before 2003?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I reiterate that we are committed to drafting the bill to introduce those changes, and we will introduce the bill as soon as possible. It is important that we get the draft bill out for consultation. We are committed to doing that as soon as possible.

We are proposing new powers for Scottish Natural Heritage to prevent damage and deterioration to sites of special scientific interest.

The SSSI system has served Scotland well, but reform is needed to introduce a system that will serve Scotland better. On those occasions when it is necessary, SNH will be able to refuse consent for activities that will damage SSSIs. We will provide a new appeals mechanism for anyone aggrieved by a refusal and we will ensure that a fair compensation system is in place.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Not just now.

Land managers will be compensated if refusal of consent inhibits the established management of their land, but we will no longer countenance claims for the refusal of damaging new projects. The detail of the proposals is being worked out with assistance from a wide variety of interested parties. Their support has convinced us that the measures we propose are fair.

We are also proposing tough new measures against those criminals whose selfish actions deprive us all of the opportunity to enjoy some of our most special wildlife. In the 21st century we can no longer tolerate the 19th century practices of poisoning or shooting birds of prey or the stealing of birds' eggs. We have proposed new powers to allow the police to detect wildlife crime and new powers for the courts to impose stiffer penalties for those guilty of acts of wildlife crime. Those include the option of custodial sentences.

We received many constructive ideas about how to take forward the proposals contained in "The Nature of Scotland". To help to forge those ideas into practical measures, the Executive has established an expert working group involving land managers, conservationists, public bodies and others. I am pleased to report that the group is achieving a high degree of consensus on how the proposed measures should be implemented. We will be using the work of the group to help us to draft legislation, and to develop the supporting policies that we announced in "The Nature of Scotland".

Legislation is for the future and is only part of the story. Much is being done now to protect and promote Scotland's natural heritage.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister mentioned legislation on wildlife crime and she mentioned SSSIs. Will she address the issue of national scenic areas, which are our equivalent of areas of outstanding natural beauty down south, which urgently require statutory provision?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Yes. Of course that is taken into consideration. We need to adopt an integrated approach to the future of Scotland's natural heritage. Much is being done to protect and promote Scotland's natural heritage. As is made clear in "The Nature of Scotland", the Executive is committed to that integrated package of policies and incentives to help people to manage the natural heritage.

We have used the SSSI system to fulfil our international responsibilities. The European Union habitats and birds directives govern our contribution to the Natura 2000 network of European protected areas. Special protection areas for birds and special areas of conservation for habitats and species listed in the habitats directive are normally protected through the SSSI system.

Those international interests are all around us—from the common terns that nest around the cranes in the Port of Leith to the corncrake that breed in the Hebrides and the geese that feed in the fields across Scotland. Some of our typically Scottish habitats, such as the machair of the Western Isles and our bogs and heather moorland, are unrivalled anywhere else in Europe. To protect those species and habitats of international importance, we have as of today designated 131 special protection areas and proposed 221 special areas of conservation in Scotland.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Will the minister comment on the effect of global warming on habitats for rare species such as the capercaillie or for upland species such as the ptarmigan?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I assure the member that we are aware of the potential impact of global warming on species such as the capercaillie and the ptarmigan. As the member also will be aware, through our climate change programme we are seeking to mitigate the potential effects of climate change on Scotland. The member probably heard on the radio yesterday that a great deal of work is being done in that area. The Scottish Executive is involved in advancing projects to protect the capercaillie. The member will recognise that a variety of factors are contributing to the decline of the capercaillie. We are contributing to programmes to remove deer fences and to other measures to protect that species.

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

Will the minister give way?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

If Fergus Ewing does not mind, I will move on.

"A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture" highlights the need for a joined-up approach to agriculture and environment policy. We are developing those policies in partnership with the farming industry and the environmental sector, and have set up an agriculture and environment working group, which will report to ministers next year.

A number of agri-environment schemes support environmentally friendly farming. The rural stewardship scheme gives priority to plans that focus on the effective management of farmed environments that are important for biodiversity and protected areas.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Will the minister give way?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

If Robin Harper does not mind, I wish to get to the end of my speech.

The Executive's funding of agri-environment schemes, including the rural stewardship scheme, is continuing on a rising trend, and will increase from £22 million this year to £37 million per year by 2006.

But we are not talking only about land. Our marine heritage is also subject to growing pressure from pollution and over-exploitation of fish stocks. We are committed to the sustainable management of our seas and coastlines, and our contributions to the forthcoming reform of the common fisheries policy will reflect that commitment. We are currently involved with our UK partners in a review of marine nature conservation, and shall study carefully the implications of that review for Scotland.

Protected areas are equally important in the marine environment. We have recommended marine special areas of conservation in inshore waters for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network and are expecting scientific advice on the classification of special protection areas for birds. We will be in the forefront of applying the habitats directive in offshore waters. The recently discovered cold-water corals of the Darwin mounds between Shetland and the Faroe islands are likely to become part of the first UK special area of conservation beyond 12 nautical miles. We are conscious of the need to work with those who earn their living from the marine environment. There is local involvement in management fora to care for marine sites. In addition, we have benefited from financial support from the EU LIFE fund.

The proposals in "The Nature of Scotland" go beyond protected areas. Biodiversity—the variety of all living things—is an essential resource for sustainable development and a measure of success in delivering sustainability. Much has already been achieved for biodiversity through the Scottish biodiversity group. That broad-based working partnership involves the Executive, its agencies, local government, voluntary bodies, land users and the business sector. Partnership is, once again, the key feature. The Executive cannot deliver their policies without such support, and I take this opportunity to express my respect for the work of the Scottish biodiversity group. It is right that the Executive should set an example, and we have proposed a specific duty on Scottish ministers to have regard to the conservation of biological diversity in the exercise of their functions. That will be included in the new legislation.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The minister is winding up.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Scotland's nature is a national asset, but to maintain that asset requires resources. Scottish Natural Heritage's budget has been increased from £39 million in 1999-2000 to £48.5 million in 2001-02. A substantial part of that increase is intended to allow SNH to enter into more positive management schemes for the benefit of SSSIs and the people who manage them. Last month, I was pleased to launch SNH's natural care programme of management schemes for key habitats and species. The incentives provided by the natural care programme will ensure that more people will benefit from having protected areas on their land.

Our countryside and wildlife already bring great enjoyment to Scotland's people and visitors. Who could fail to be thrilled by the sight of dolphins leaping in the Moray firth or the gannets on the Bass rock? Our countryside and wildlife are assets that already pay dividends. Around 1.25 million tourists from other parts of the UK visit Scotland to participate in mountaineering, climbing and hill walking. That generates £275 million annually for the Scottish economy and it supports almost 10,000 jobs. Clearly the highest standards of wildlife protection go hand in hand with success in attracting tourism.

The natural heritage is also at the heart of our proposals to establish national parks in Loch Lomond, the Trossachs and the Cairngorms. Our investment is for all Scotland's people, their children and their grandchildren. We want everyone to understand why our natural heritage is special and to have the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy it. If we work together for our natural heritage, we will see benefits for all who live in, work in and enjoy our magnificent country.

I move,

That the Parliament supports the Scottish Ministers' intention to come forward with legislative proposals to protect and promote Scotland's natural heritage; notes the widespread support for this proposed reform, and agrees that improved protection of nature requires a combination of new legislation and integrated land use policies and incentives currently being developed by the Executive.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In the document "The Nature of Scotland", published in March—as the minister rightly said—Sam Galbraith said:

"Scotland's nature is at the core of what many of us believe makes our country distinct and special".

He also said:

"Our natural inheritance is in many cases the fruit of many centuries of human stewardship."

How right he was. Proper stewardship of land, rivers, lochs and seas is something that runs deep in the Scottish make-up. It is part of who we are. In Scotland, the royal title of Steward of Scotland has been in use since the 14th century. That reflects a long tradition of guardianship on behalf of the public interest.

I wonder, however, what the previous Stewards of Scotland would think of the actions of today's Government. I can only say to the minister that the lack of commitment shown in the tenor of her speech today explains why she has nothing new to propose to the Parliament in the way of action. Nothing has moved since March and the publication of "The Nature of Scotland"—not one thing.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Would the member like to say what he thought the minister meant when she said "as soon as possible" in her speech?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If Sylvia Jackson looks at the SNP's motion, she will see that we have demanded a timetable. I have heard nothing from the minister about a timetable for action on any of the issues about which she spoke. Although the intention might be in the right place, there is no action in the shape of a timetable for the introduction of a wildlife crime bill or a modernised system of SSSIs, for which the SNP has called in its motion.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the member is so concerned about wildlife crime, why was it not mentioned in the SNP manifesto in 1999?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am so concerned about it that I was the only person to mention it during the programme for government debate, unlike any Government minister or back bencher from the Liberal Democrats or the Labour party.

Also missing from the minister's speech is a timetable to give Scottish ministers a specific duty relating to biodiversity.

The Executive is right to say in the motion that there is widespread support for such reforms. It is also true to say that there is support for action, as witnessed by the 10,000-signature petition that calls for wildlife crime legislation. Such legislation is urgent because it is well known that wildlife criminals are targeting Scotland since tougher laws have been implemented in England. Wildlife criminals now view Scotland as a soft touch. It is time that the Executive acted to sort out what Donald Dewar called a national disgrace. There will be great disappointment in many parts of Scotland that no timetable was mentioned today.

The issue of modernising SSSIs is another area where reform is desperately needed. Under the current system of designating SSSIs, wildlife has continued to decline on many protected sites. It is also true that the people who live and work in the countryside are concerned that those designations affect their livelihoods. They await action, not more words.

There is a pressing requirement to introduce a much stronger voice for local communities, local authorities and landowners, to improve consultation with them on the designation and management of SSSIs and to ensure much more open and transparent decision making. Crucially, we need to sweep away much of the time-consuming and confusing bureaucracy, but we do not yet have a timetable for doing that.

Those matters were glaring omissions from the recently announced programme for government and nothing has changed today. Why is that? I hate to say it, but we told you so. The lack of action was inevitable from the day that Ross Finnie was appointed as Minister for Environment and Rural Development. At that time, we pointed out that—through no fault of his own—Mr Finnie's portfolio was overloaded. We asked how he could be expected to deal with the fishing industry and the catastrophe of foot-and-mouth disease and to guide through two water bills, at the same time as taking action on his environmental responsibilities.

The lack of action is visible to everyone in the failure to act on commitments in "The Nature of Scotland". We warned of the potential for conflicts of interest. Unfortunately, those have been only too visible in the decision to give the go-ahead to new genetically modified crop trials at Munlochy or the refusal to concede a public inquiry into the contentious issue of sea cage fish farming. The pending coronation of the new First Minister is the perfect opportunity to correct the wrong and muddle-headed decision to combine portfolios and to ensure that there is a dedicated minister for the environment, who will champion environmental concerns and ensure that the Executive adopts an integrated stewardship approach.

What is stewardship about? At its simplest, stewardship is the notion of entrusting people with the responsibility to care for the community to which they belong, for the land they own and work on and for other living things. The concept also involves a strong culture of pride in the things that are special about Scotland. By necessity, it means Government, individuals, communities and organisations—public and private—taking a pride in Scotland. It means that Government must recognise that, for all to thrive, the nation has a responsibility to live within particular boundaries. Those boundaries need not be onerous for Scotland.

Stewardship simply requires Government and the nation to accept that future generations have a legitimate interest—to ensure that valuable assets that past generations helped to create for us, such as our natural heritage, can be passed on in good order for future generations. It also means that Government must act not only for the good of individuals or organisations, or for its own benefit, but to increase the common good. In recent days, when the press has been full of accusations of cronyism, some quarters would do well to pay heed to that ethos.

Government must also recognise that we might have to accept a reasonable constraint on our freedom to act, but that does not need to mean a welter of new regulation. On the contrary, if a greater sense of individual responsibility, common good and recognition of our mutual obligations can be fostered, there might be fewer requirements for burdensome regulation and legislation.

A stewardship approach by the Executive would inevitably lead to some searching and fundamental questions about whether funds are being used for the common good and about how the decision-making framework can be developed to take account of the interests of future generations and the species with which we share the place that we call Scotland.

I move amendment S1M-2444.2, to leave out from ", and agrees" to end and insert:

"and the many open ended commitments in the policy statement The Nature of Scotland; calls on the Executive to publish a timetable for the introduction of a Wildlife Crime Bill and a modernised system for the protection and management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest; records its concerns over the portfolios of rural development and environment continuing to be the responsibility of the same Minister, and further calls on the Executive to adopt an integrated 'stewardship' approach to the development and implementation of its policies in regard to the natural heritage and resources of Scotland."

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

As a farmer and the owner of land that is about to be designated as an SSSI to protect hen-harriers, I must declare an interest.

We must take a broad view. In general terms, I give a qualified welcome to the Executive's proposals that are published in "The Nature of Scotland" and to many of the details that the minister outlined. The document and its proposals will have a far-reaching impact on rural Scotland. Any owner, occupier or manager who is not aware of its existence should get a copy forthwith and read it. The proposals represent the Executive's attempt to address the problems of competing interests in SSSI designation and to extend significant further protection to wildlife. I will deal first with the increased protection of wildlife, as outlined in the document.

The Conservative party, too, welcomes the new proposed powers of increased protection of Scotland's wild birds, animals and plants from wildlife crimes. We welcome particularly the intention to protect the capercaillie more, but we question the wisdom of completely removing deer fencing to do so. We also welcome the new strategy for species reintroduction, but that must be carefully monitored. The long-term impacts must be carefully assessed.

Our disagreement with the Executive is a matter of emphasis in land and sea management, and particularly over the current and new designations of SSSIs, special protection areas, special areas of conservation and national nature reserves. I recognise that the Executive has obligations under various European Union directives to create new SSSIs, SPAs, SACs and NNRs, but I ask that a better balance be struck between the interests of all parties involved. I accept that "The Nature of Scotland" represents a change in the attitude of the Executive and SNH to trying to deliver a more inclusive approach, but that does not go far enough. Owners, occupiers and managers of land will remain unhappy.

"The Nature of Scotland" raises expectations of adequate compensation for SSSI designation, but the detail—if I have understood it correctly—means that little compensation will be paid to managers, occupiers and owners of land. The minister's statement today about the increase in SNH's budget does little to reassure me.

One could not disagree with the motherhood and apple pie principles that Sam Galbraith outlined on 7 March 2001, but the reality is that those who must live with the designations daily and with the restrictions that they impose remain apprehensive, because, as the document says on page 35:

"There should be a stronger voice for local authorities and local communities in the designation and management of SSSIs, balanced with the need to ... respect the rights of the owners and occupiers of the land."

Owners and occupiers do not know what that means. How will the phrase "local communities" be defined? Who will have the final say on the desire on which all agree—

"to secure the protection of Scotland's most important nature sites"?

There is the rub. Ultimately, the designations—the protection of our precious habitats—cannot be delivered by decree alone. SNH and the Government must secure the full co-operation and commitment of owners and occupiers. The proposals do not adequately address the need to recognise that a burden is being imposed on owners and occupiers without compensation being paid, in many cases.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

"The Nature of Scotland" also says:

"There will be increased resources to provide incentives for the positive management of SSSIs".

I thought that ministers might have said this, but I will do it for them. The document says:

"We will end claims for large compensation payments"

and that the Executive will consult site owners. I struggle to find the difference between the Conservatives' amendment and many statements in "The Nature of Scotland".

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

If the member had listened to the debate, he would have heard that I am talking about a difference in emphasis.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am talking about the Conservatives' amendment.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I thank Bruce Crawford for his intervention, but I will continue. The EU habitats directive is at odds with human rights legislation. Although the proposals represent a move in the right direction, I still do not believe that they adequately address the conundrum.

The proposals also do not recognise that the management and conservation practices of the past delivered what is regarded today as so worthy of protection. They do not recognise that only thriving businesses can deliver environmental enhancement and protection. Social and economic factors are not sufficiently regarded in the proposals. However, the proposals recognise that global warming, to which Nora Radcliffe referred, may render the whole strategy ineffective.

The proposals represent a desire to freeze-frame the situation and stop it from evolving organically as it did over generations and centuries.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Please wind up.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The proposals do not acknowledge that the rural stewardship scheme, which I understand will finance the proposals, is significantly underfunded.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Will the member give way?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Yes.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I am sorry, Mr Canavan, but Mr Scott is winding up and will have to continue.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

We accept the broad principle of the strategy, but despite the more conciliatory tone, we do not believe that it goes far enough to achieve the full co-operation of those who will have to deliver it daily. That is why we lodged our amendment, which I urge the chamber to accept.

I move amendment S1M-2444.3, to leave out from "and promote" to end and insert:

"Scotland's wildlife and welcomes their proposals to promote and continue to protect Scotland's natural heritage; recognises the conservation practices of previous generations; supports the need for an overall balance to be struck which recognises the needs of local communities, land owners, occupiers, managers and conservationists alike, and urges Scottish Natural Heritage to take more account of local interests and knowledge and to consult more widely before designating further Sites of Special Scientific Interest."

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Scotland's wildlife and natural beauty are essential elements of our national identity and culture, and contribute significantly to our economy. It is therefore tragic and unacceptable that mindless persecution of rare species and damage to important natural sites continue. Too little is done in Scotland to punish offenders such as rogue gamekeepers, egg collectors and criminals who trade in protected species, and conversely, too little is done to reward responsible farmers and landowners who manage and protect Scotland's most important sites.

I am pleased, therefore, to speak to a motion that reaffirms the Executive's intention to introduce a bill in line with the proposals outlined in the policy statement, "The Nature of Scotland", which was published in March.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Given that the minister said three times that she would introduce a bill as soon as possible, will Nora Radcliffe proceed with her proposed member's bill, to ensure that such proposals are on the timetable for this session?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

If I thought that proceeding would bring forward the introduction of such proposals, I would.

The proposals in "The Nature of Scotland" received widespread approval and support, and there was great disappointment that a related bill was not included in the September list of legislation to be dealt with in the next few months.

The proposals have three main strands: maintenance of biodiversity, substantial reforms to the way in which we work with land managers and communities to protect and manage the most special of our natural assets, and new measures for the effective deterrence, detection and punishment of crime against wildlife.

"Action for Scotland's Biodiversity" was published last year. Most local authority areas have local biodiversity plans, and the document, "A Flying Start: Local Biodiversity Action Plans in Scotland", which was published in August 2001, outlines how much is happening throughout Scotland.

An important aspect of local biodiversity action plans is the way in which they have been produced by a wide range of people and organisations working together. If they are to be effective, an even wider range of people must understand what they are, why they are necessary and that everyone must contribute. A big job of awareness raising must be done.

The big three—farming, fishing and forestry—are industries where an impact on the environment is expected and considered. Developers, industry, commerce and private individuals must all be made aware that they are just as important a part of the equation. There are 90,000 species of animals, plants and microbes living in Scotland's land and sea, and they are everywhere—not just in the pretty bits of the countryside. They provide us with food, building materials and medicines; they recycle nutrients and convert carbon dioxide into oxygen.

Are members beginning to feel that they should be more involved in protecting all 90,000 building blocks of our ecosystem? Would they be happier if more were known about how each building block fits into the structure and which are crucial to its continued existence?

We are experiencing the effects of our actions in past decades with global warming. We started that process and do not know how far it will run until we manage—if we do—to slow it and reverse it. Monitoring species as part of biodiversity action planning will give us an idea of what is happening and how we are doing.

As I said, a strong feature of local biodiversity action plans has been the way in which people have worked together to develop them. That way of working—involving local communities and organisations in looking after their own environment—should be extended to how we deal with particularly rare, precious or important parts of the environment. The proposals in "The Nature of Scotland" will do that.

It is intended that we change from paying people not to do things to more positive measures that support people to do things. That is good. Carrots can work well, but sometimes a stick is needed. There have to be sanctions against people who persecute or destroy rare species or who damage precious habitats, whether that is wilfully or recklessly.

Last week, the Transport and the Environment Committee dealt with a statutory instrument that gives the capercaillie greater legal protection. That is very laudable, but what resources are in place to ensure that the legal protection that is given on paper has some force on the ground?

Perhaps we do not take wildlife crimes seriously enough because people do not think that such crime is big business. We should reflect on the fact that it is estimated that crimes involving abuse of wildlife generate a turnover globally of about £2 billion. That represents organised crime on a scale that is second only to the drugs trade. However, the penalties that are imposed on wildlife criminals are derisory. A live falcon can fetch over £5,000 in the middle east or Germany. In the unlikely event that a trapper is caught, prosecuted and convicted, the fine that is imposed ranges from £90 to £150. That is hardly a deterrent.

The falcon would at least be reasonably well treated, but other wildlife might not be so fortunate.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I ask the member to wind up.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Badger baiting continues to go on in Scotland—despite badgers being fully protected by the law.

It is time to make the penalties for wildlife crime more realistic. Since the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was passed, penalties in England have been stiffer. Committing a wildlife crime in Scotland is therefore a much more attractive prospect. We need a bill that will tackle crime and which will bring in other measures to protect and promote Scotland's natural heritage. A draft bill is now eagerly anticipated. I hope that that anticipation will be satisfied speedily.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

A large number of members wish to take part in the debate, but very little time remains. So that I can try to accommodate all those who wish to speak, I ask members to keep their contributions to three minutes if at all possible.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

A current ScotRail Outlook magazine contains no fewer than 19 photographs of Scotland's scenic beauty. I am pleased that at least one of the photographs was taken in my constituency.

Those images of beautiful landscapes, peace and tranquillity are what attract visitors to Scotland. Speakers at a recent meeting of the cross-party group on tourism, convened by Maureen Macmillan, confirmed that view as well as the importance of eco-tourism.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Does Sylvia Jackson agree that, in addition to the growing importance of eco-tourism to the economy of rural and Highlands Scotland, the perception and actuality that Scotland cares for its natural environment is a strong marketing point for Scottish produce, as that helps to create premiums on that produce? If so, that means that the environment plays a caring part in the rural economy.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

That is a good point. I plan to talk about salmon later.

In terms of Scottish tourism, Scotland's nature, our natural heritage, and its protection and promotion, are paramount. I speak as one of the members of the cross-party group that presented RSPB Scotland's petition to the Public Petitions Committee in support of "The Nature of Scotland". The petition's 10,000 signatures make it one of the biggest petitions ever submitted in support of Government policy. As the minister said, the response to the consultation process was extremely supportive. The Executive received 225 responses, virtually all of them in support of the proposals in the document.

Why do we need urgent reform? Some points have already been well made by Nora Radcliffe. First, we need it to stop the present persecution of birds of prey, as that continues unabated. Over half the 284 cases of alleged wildlife crime that were reported to RSPB Scotland last year involved birds of prey. England and Wales now has reformed and strengthened wildlife legislation. That has led to sentences such as the three-month prison sentence given to an egg collector by a Liverpool magistrate. Concerned groups, such as the Scottish Raptor Study Groups, fear that egg collectors will come from south of the border to Scotland, as they will find Scotland with its more lax laws an even more attractive target for their activities. As Nora Radcliffe outlined, fines seem to have little effect. I welcome the minister's comments on that point.

Secondly, there is urgent need for reform because, due to neglect or mismanagement, SSSIs continue to deteriorate. As many members have mentioned, a new system is needed.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

No, as my time is short.

Three points have been raised by the Scottish Wildlife Trust. First, the process of biodiversity action planning needs to be recognised in law. Much work has been done locally, including in Stirling, to develop local biodiversity action plans. BAPs provide an opportunity for community action and ownership and for an approach to be taken that looks at the community as a whole.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I ask the member to wind up.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Secondly, there needs to be a formal recognition of the 3,500 wildlife sites that are recognised by local authorities. A strong argument can be made that local authorities should maintain those sites. Thirdly, as was mentioned by the minister, the bill should address the process of designating marine sites.

In these debates, time is always short, but in summing up I would like to mention that none of the matters that we are debating exists in isolation. Agricultural policy is a key determinant. We have debated the importance of the funding for organic farming and for the rural stewardship scheme, which need to be run separately.

There is also the issue of pollution—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The member must come to a close.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

I am particularly pleased that the Transport and the Environment Committee is looking at pollution, with particular regard to fish farming.

Finally, there is a need for cross-department working at the level of the Scottish Parliament.

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

There is no doubt that we all agree about the objectives that are contained in the Executive document. However, as Nora Radcliffe and Sylvia Jackson said, there is a desperate need for those objectives to be implemented.

The SNP does not disagree with the sentiments that Nora Radcliffe and Sylvia Jackson expressed. Wildlife criminals need to be subject to far more serious sentences. That is the point of the document, and that is what Peter Peacock and Sam Galbraith professed they would do in March. However, when they said that they would introduce legislation, they did not say, "Oh, by the way, we won't actually bring forward legislation until some time after the next election." The central problem that the Executive faces today is that it has backtracked on the issue. The Executive cannot find time in its legislative programme for a matter that is of grave concern to almost all back benchers in the Executive parties. Members have already heard two of them arguing for legislation to be introduced. However, when I intervened during the minister's speech, she manifestly failed to put any time scale on the introduction of legislation.

The Executive motion is vacuous, nebulous and unclear. Its purpose is clear—it is to let the Executive off the hook. The Executive plans to do nothing until after the election. The purpose of the Parliament is to hold the Executive to account and, such is the feeling on the back benches, I do not think that it will get away with that. I wait with interest to see whether Sylvia Jackson and Nora Radcliffe will support the Executive motion.

The minister said that the system of SSSIs has served Scotland well. That is not what is said in the document: at page 63, a whole variety of flaws is set out. I agree with that part of the document—the system is flawed. However, what does the document propose? It proposes a new duty to be imposed on SNH. There is nothing new about the proposal, as it appears in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991—the act that set up SNH. The act states:

"it shall be the duty of SNH in exercising its functions to take account as may be appropriate in the circumstances of ... the interests of local communities."

Ten years on, the Executive is choosing to ignore the fact that SNH has, in some cases, not observed its duty to take account of the interests of local communities. Under section 3(1)(c) of the act, SNH has to take account of

"the need for social and economic development".

Under section 3(1)(b), it needs to take account of

"the needs of agriculture, fisheries and forestry",

and under section 3(1)(e), it needs to take account of

"the interests of owners and occupiers of land".

That has not happened. Indeed, in my constituency, that has not happened big style. I have to put it to the ministers that the designation of areas including Loch Sunart, Arran, Islay and various areas in Badenoch and Strathspey has gone ahead because SNH wanted it to go ahead. SNH paid little or no regard to the views of local communities, yet it had a duty to take them into account.

That fact is well known in my constituency. What is not well known is that that legislation also gives ministers the right to give directions to SNH, just as is done with the Scottish Qualifications Agency. That power has not been used.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I ask the member to wind up.

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

The Executive has not brought this quango to account. One of the reasons why the Parliament was created was to bring quangos to account. Many people believe that SNH—or at least its top management—stands not for Scottish Natural Heritage but for See No People. [MEMBERS: "That is SNP."] Nothing in the document will give succour to those people.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The tradition of interest in Scotland's natural heritage has its origins in the farming community. It is no surprise that three farmers are speaking for the Conservatives today. That traditional link between the farming community and our natural heritage goes right back to Robert Burns and many of the other great authors of previous centuries.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Unfortunately, three minutes gives me no time to take interventions.

It is that tradition that I wanted to highlight. There are those, even in my own party, who believe that it is something of a mistake for the minister who is responsible for agriculture to have responsibility for Scotland's natural heritage. When the minister was appointed, I was the first to welcome the fact that the two roles had been combined. That is a personal view and not necessarily that of my party. However, that combination of poacher and gamekeeper, so to speak, takes two of the biggest issues in Scotland today and puts them in the hands of the same man in the same department.

Ross Finnie finds himself between the proverbial rock and a hard place. He has to find a way forward that deals with the requirement to maintain Scotland's natural heritage and to take into account the social and economic interests of those who live in conjunction with or very much on Scotland's natural heritage.

We have heard from the proposer of our amendment, John Scott, that that is the gist of our amendment. We believe that the Executive's policies are fundamentally sound and that its aspirations are worthy of pursuit. However, we wish, through our amendment, to ensure that the interests of those who live in rural Scotland—the landowners, land occupiers and land managers, and the communities that depend on them—will be properly and adequately recognised through that structure.

We in Scotland have serious concerns about the level of population of many of our species. Unfortunately, those who sit on the benches behind the Executive do not necessarily agree with its policies. Too often, members of the Parliament have tried to represent the interests of deer, seals, foxes and raptors at the expense of the people who suffer the consequences of their actions. In a debate earlier this year, the fox—well known as a wily and intelligent creature—outwitted 84 out of 129 MSPs.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

When it comes to protecting our natural heritage, Scotland badly lags behind England and Wales. We are 50 years behind on national parks. It is to the credit of the Scottish Executive that it has moved as fast as it has and made the designation of two national parks a top priority. We are the country that produced the man who invented the concept of national parks, yet we are one of the last countries to designate any.

The fact that legislation on wildlife crime is much stronger down south has been alluded to. We must follow England and Wales on that as soon as possible. There is also the issue of SSSIs, and of national scenic areas—our equivalent of areas of outstanding natural beauty down south. The top priority and a matter of urgency must be legislation to bring us into line with England and Wales on wildlife crime. The passing of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 made provision for custodial sentences; I understand that the first one has just been handed out. I also understand, from SNH, that all that is required is a simple, straightforward bill of around three to four sections. If the Scottish Executive is to maintain its excellent track record of moving to protect our unique natural heritage, there is no excuse for not introducing legislation in the next parliamentary year at the latest. I hope that the minister can give us an assurance on that point when he winds up. "As soon as possible" is far too vague.

We need a second bill, to cover, among other things, SSSIs and national scenic areas. As far as SSSIs are concerned, it is almost too late. We needed such a bill five years ago. We need a proper definition and perhaps even a new designation. SSSIs were originally introduced to cover small sites in the lowlands of England, not huge areas such as the Tweed basin, which incorporates 800 landowners. We certainly need to improve the decision-making processes. At the moment, SNH gathers the scientific evidence and says that much of it is unreliable. We need to provide the resources so that the scientific data are more comprehensive and reliable. The Executive currently takes the decisions, but we need wider consultation and—as Nora Radcliffe mentioned—provision for a review to include global warming, which might lead to a change in certain species' habitats.

National scenic areas need to be given statutory provision. My constituency at Westminster included the Clwydian range, which was designated an area of outstanding natural beauty, the equivalent of national scenic areas. How valuable is that designation? I saw the value of it, and it is potentially important for Scotland too, for areas such as highland Perthshire, which finds itself wedged between the two national parks that have so far been designated: the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. It is also a potential designation for the Angus glens, if they are not included in the Cairngorms national park.

I commend the UK Labour Government since 1997 and the Scottish Executive since 1999 for moving so rapidly and making up for the lost decades of the 1980s and 1990s. The previous Conservative Government did nothing. Its record on protecting our natural heritage was lamentable to the point of disgrace. Unlike the Scottish Liberal Democrats but like the Tories, the SNP failed to mention wildlife crime in its 1999 manifesto. We welcome SNP members' belated display of interest and concern, but they will not be surprised if we view their indignation today as somewhat synthetic, let alone hypocritical.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I welcome the Executive's commitment to introduce legislation, but I would like the minister to define precisely what she means by "as soon as possible". There is widespread support for the implementation of the proposals outlined in the Executive's "The Nature of Scotland" paper. If external experts and members of the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Rural Development Committee started working with Executive civil servants on preparing a preliminary draft of the bill, it would be a new way of working and a real opportunity to implement new politics.

While the proposals in "The Nature of Scotland" are commendable, they provide only a part of what is needed to protect Scotland's natural heritage. Nora Radcliffe spoke about local biodiversity action plans and used the political term "majority" to describe how the local authorities are getting on with them. That disguises the very real fact that just under half of local authorities are nowhere near completing their biodiversity action plans. That is a strong argument for making it a statutory duty on local authorities to complete them, and even a statutory duty to sustain local biodiversity action plans once they have been prepared.

I am sad that, judging by the rural development plan and the minister's introduction today, the Executive still fails to recognise the contribution that organic farming could make to our environment and to Scotland's marketing in Europe. Yesterday, the UK Climate Impacts Programme published a report entitled "Climate Change and Nature Conservation in Britain and Ireland", in which it said that it was likely that animal and plant species in Scotland, including the capercaillie and the red-throated diver, would die out as a result of climate change. Nora Radcliffe also mentioned that.

The long-term future of Scotland's natural heritage depends not only on specific wildlife policies but on Government policy right across the board. That is why we need a dedicated environment minister in Scotland. The concept of sustainable development needs to be elevated to have an impact throughout the Executive. That was pointed out in the independent report prepared by Tim Birley for the World Wide Fund for Nature for our education and enlightenment.

There is now an opportunity—I hope that the new First Minister or those in the new Cabinet are listening—for the post of dedicated minister for the environment to be reinstated. Furthermore, the Executive could recognise the importance of environmentally sustainable development, and could give the ministerial group on sustainability in Scotland and the sustainable development unit a place at the heart of Government policy making. In addition, I would like a commitment from Rhona Brankin that she will suggest that the First Minister go to the global environment talks in Johannesburg next year. Those talks are too important for the future of Scotland's natural heritage to leave to our colleagues south of the border.

There is much to commend in the SNP amendment. My amendment, which covered similar ground, was not selected. However, the SNP's concern for Scotland's natural heritage might be all the more credible if it were to review its policies against increasing duties on fuel.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

It is extremely important that we safeguard our natural heritage, not only because, once lost, it can never be replaced, but because of the benefit that we can gain from environmental tourism. To promote environmental tourism in Scotland, we must provide a landscape and wildlife that will attract tourists, but we also need to provide the facilities to enable them to come back. To protect our natural heritage, we need to take with us the people who live and work on the land.

There is always tension between those who have cared for our natural heritage through the generations and the public bodies that give the impression that that work has no value. Decision makers sometimes appear remote from the areas that they look after. That is why I and my colleague, Maureen Macmillan, have written to Angus MacKay asking him to review the base of Scottish Natural Heritage. It is my belief that, if that agency were based in the Highlands, decision makers would gain a more in-depth knowledge of the areas that they cover. Large parts of the Highlands are covered by SSSIs and some people who work the land are frustrated by regulation.

Easy access to SNH would alleviate some of those communication problems and encourage partnership working.

We must also examine ways of encouraging a proactive role by those who work the land. At present, people are paid large amounts of money to do nothing. I am glad that the minister has addressed that point. We all know of practices that can enhance our natural heritage and we should contract with those who work on the land to carry out those practices and should provide financial help to enable them to do so. That would make a lot more sense than paying someone to do nothing. People who work on the land must also be involved in drawing up the contract, and must have their expertise put to full use.

The minister mentioned marine conservation, and I commend to her the work of the Moray Firth Partnership. It has worked with local communities throughout the Moray firth area and is doing much to conserve the local area and the dolphins that live there and which are a huge tourist attraction.

To protect our natural heritage, we need to involve local people, who must be at the heart of our policies. We know the value of natural heritage to our people, and local people are the natural protectors of that heritage. We must be able to support them. If we all work together, we will achieve the protection and promotion of our natural heritage.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The only interesting point in Alex Johnstone's speech was his mention of Robert Burns. That brings me to the subject of the humble haggis, which may be part of our natural heritage. Any members who have been following local papers in the north-east will have noticed that professional tourism signs have been put up at Oyne in Aberdeenshire warning of a haggis crossing and a haggis sanctuary.

Turning away from haggis, I want to talk about the freshwater and marine environment, which is an important part of our natural heritage. I shall begin with freshwater fisheries in our rivers in Scotland. Members may remember how the Executive was dragged kicking and screaming to introduce the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Act 2001 after international protests against the Government's record and reaction to low catch figures in our salmon rivers. That is symptomatic of the Government's approach. It has to be dragged kicking and screaming to introduce relevant legislation.

The debate on the freshwater fisheries sector now continues about the transfer of non-native species between river catchments and about importing non-native species into Scotland from elsewhere. That debate is currently raging among environmentalists and the angling community. People want it sorted out and they want legislation introduced as soon as possible.

I welcome the fact that all those issues are mentioned in the Government's proposals, but there is no timetable. When will we actually see the legislation? Action on those issues is long overdue, but we face the prospect of waiting even more years before any new laws can be put on the statute book. The implications of not protecting our fish stocks from genetic imbalance or diseases are huge. We need that legislation, and we need it soon.

On the subject of genetic imbalance in fish stocks and the spread of disease, there is a crying need for an independent inquiry into sea cage fish farming. That concept was supported by a majority of parties in the Parliament, by parliamentary committees, by the salmon farming industry, by the angling community and by environmental organisations. If the Government were taking the matter seriously, surely it would have accepted the strong and unassailable case for that inquiry. But, oh no, the minister chose to be isolated once again, took on the whole united front and would not go down the sensible route of protecting, or at least ascertaining what is behind the decline of, freshwater fish stocks, particularly in north-west Scotland, and what is the right way forward for the relationship between sea cage fish farming and the environment.

On the marine environment, new discoveries are being made all the time in Scottish waters. I pay tribute to the University of Aberdeen's Oceanlab, which recently opened in Newburgh, Aberdeenshire. I encourage the minister to visit Oceanlab, which is now investigating the world's ocean floors, as well as those around Scotland, and is discovering new species all the time. That shows just how great Scotland's natural environment is. I also congratulate the oil industry, which has made progress in recent years in protecting the environment.

We want a sustainable fishery in our oceans. The minister alluded to that in her opening remarks. We have to tackle industrial fishing as part of the common fisheries policy negotiations if we are to protect our fishing stocks and the marine environment. It is extremely important that we achieve those objectives.

When people around the world think of Scotland, they tend to think of our natural environment. We have to protect that environment as a matter of urgency, not just for tourism and for the economy but because we have a responsibility to the environment and to the rest of the world to do so.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I am trying to accommodate all the members who want to speak in the debate, so it would be helpful if the last three speakers could stick strictly to the three-minute time limit.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

This morning, we have heard from many members about their interest in the natural heritage of our countryside. I too want to protect and promote Scotland's natural heritage, which has been handed down to us by our forefathers, in whose keeping it was cared for and nurtured in a natural and responsible manner to the extent that today our countryside, our wildlife and our flora and fauna are the envy of our national and international neighbours who, I am sorry to say, have forfeited much of their natural surroundings to the commercial onslaught of bricks and mortar.

We must ensure that any new legislative proposals do not impose further restrictions. It is often felt that there is gross over-regulation as it is. SSSIs, SACs and other designations are imposed on land and marine sites when the justification is highly questionable. Designation is frequently inappropriate. In my area, a marine designation has been placed on Loch Duich, Loch Alsh and Loch Long. In spite of the best efforts of the local community to determine what is being protected or why the sites should be designated, we have had no information.

The current system of designation is quite unacceptable. It is inefficient and it is always controversial. We must adopt a more positive management framework and direct more emphasis and focus towards incentives rather than restrictions. I suggest that earlier and continuing consultation with affected communities and landowners would be a welcome step forward.

We should also exercise more control over the many statutory bodies, charities and other organisations that seem to control and regulate our countryside. Their aims and objectives are always channelled through the guise of a single issue and they are always oblivious to the other views and aspirations of local communities.

Scotland's natural heritage and environment has been protected and preserved by generations of people living and working in the countryside. We must ensure that, through genuine dialogue and consultation with people who have a genuine interest in the control and management of the countryside, we can secure their co-operation and have the opportunity to preserve a vibrant and viable heritage and environment and present it to the generations that follow us. That is our duty, and it is what I recommend.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I have put so many big lines through my speech I might need fewer than three minutes.

To begin with, I want to make one or two comments about access issues, which I know are not within the minister's remit. Earlier this year, foot-and-mouth disease caused huge problems in rural areas. When the notices went up in the countryside, the tourists—whether they were day trippers, weekenders or visitors who were staying longer—stopped coming. Access is absolutely crucial to Scottish tourism. I have already expressed concerns about delays in introducing access proposals as part of the land reform bill and about how they will be handled in the bill. If we do not see those proposals soon, I will renew my call to split the issue off into separate legislation. However, since the Parliament should be about joined-up thinking, I ask the minister to put pressure on her justice colleagues to introduce the land reform bill as quickly as possible, as it is partly key to some of the issues that we are discussing.

The Executive's policy statement in March contained a lot of fine words and a higher than usual standard of art work, but wildlife professionals and the public clearly want much more than that. We want some action. As people have said—and as I say again—until this month, the Executive had given no indication about when it intended to proceed with the wildlife crime legislation. In one of his last appearances at First Minister's question time, the ex-First Minister said that a draft bill will be published "as soon as possible". I note that the same phrase has been repeated again today. It is not good enough; the phrase "as soon as possible" does not tell us anything.

Green tourism is a fast-expanding sector of Scotland's most important industry. Despite the foot-and-mouth outbreak, which had a catastrophic effect on my constituency, the great outdoors is still by far Scotland's biggest visitor attraction. A recent report discovered that it supports 180,000 tourism-related jobs and contributes £2.6 billion to the Scottish economy.

I have already stated why people come to the countryside: they come because they care about Scotland and what it looks like, and to see things that they might not otherwise see. For example, the image of the golden eagle is used around the world to attract visitors to our country, but last year alone three golden eagles were illegally poisoned and there are now only 420 breeding pairs in the whole country. It is not just the golden eagle. Eleven of our country's species of breeding raptor are an official conservation concern of the RSPB. That organisation has provided me with a list of the poisonings so far this year; it is distressing to tell the chamber that three of them have happened in my constituency. I also note that one of the bad news case studies in "The Nature of Scotland" relates to a poisoning in west Perthshire.

It is a tragedy. Indeed, those figures might be under-representative because under-reporting undoubtedly happens. Furthermore, the comparison between Scotland and New Zealand makes very sad reading. Someone in New Zealand was jailed for nine months for being caught with 32 eggs; in Scotland, people do not receive such sentences. We need to follow New Zealand's example, to get moving on the issue and to get it into practice now.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

I listened with interest to John Scott's comments about SSSIs. I can well understand why there is a proposal to designate John's land as such a site: it is the habitat of a very rare species indeed—a Tory MSP who represents a Scottish constituency.

The Executive motion refers to

"legislative proposals to protect and promote Scotland's natural heritage".

Like Roseanna Cunningham, I want to confine most of my remarks to one legislative proposal in particular—the right of access to the countryside. Such access is an important part of Scotland's natural heritage.

Earlier this year, the Executive published a draft land reform bill that was supposed to ensure a statutory right of responsible access to the countryside. The part of the draft bill that dealt with access was a big disappointment to many people, especially ramblers, hillwalkers and mountaineers.

I understand that the Executive received about 3,500 responses to the draft bill. I have not had enough time to analyse them all, but my researcher has looked through about 500 of them. Around 90 per cent of respondents raised concerns about access and more than three quarters said that the draft bill is too restrictive and provides less right of access than currently exists. Similar views were expressed in a petition signed by 17,000 people. On the basis of the number of signatories, it is one of the largest petitions so far presented to the Parliament.

The draft bill would provide for exclusion orders to stop access to the countryside and give the police power to arrest anyone in breach of an exclusion order. Walkers could find themselves branded as criminals and landowners would have the right to suspend access. Some landowners want to ban access at night time, which would make it impossible for people to camp overnight.

Many hillwalkers, ramblers, scouts, members of the Boys Brigade and young people who do adventure training enjoy such camping. Experienced hillwalkers do not understand why the draft bill did not follow the agreed conclusions of the Scottish access forum. That point was also made by the Mountaineering Council of Scotland.

Many ramblers and hillwalkers feel that the draft bill is worse than the status quo. Some go further and say that if the redraft of the bill is not a vast improvement on the original draft, the Scottish Executive would be better to drop the section that deals with access. It would be a great pity to miss a golden opportunity to ensure a genuine right of access to the countryside.

Scotland is blessed with some of the finest countryside in the world. The mountains, glens, rivers and lochs of Scotland are not simply the property of the landed gentry, they are part of our natural and national heritage and should be accessible for people to enjoy. It is up to the Executive to ensure that the right of access is enshrined in statute.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

That ends the open debate. I thank members for their co-operation, Mr Harper in particular. He delivered a six-minute speech in about three minutes.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

During the summer, I was asked to stand in for the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development at short notice to perform a most unusual and enjoyable parliamentary duty: I had to release some red kites into the wild from a secret location in Dumfries and Galloway in the hope that the species might again become established in the south of Scotland, as it has in the Highlands.

The red kite is a large raptor. It can predate small mammals, birds and amphibians, but it is primarily a scavenger. Due to ignorance of its behaviour, it was persecuted to the point of extinction in England, Scotland and most of Wales by the end of the 19th century.

The event that I attended was extraordinary. There was high security and we had to creep through the forest to the cages. Releasing the huge and spectacular young creatures and seeing them gradually, one by one, plucking up the courage to fly from their cage and sweep up to the high trees to look at their colleagues' progress was moving. It was not only a symbol of hope for the species: in some ways it was also a symbol of hope for Dumfries and Galloway. Earlier in the year, we felt that we were almost at the point of extinction ourselves.

Members can imagine my wrath when I discovered that, two months later, one of those fine creatures had been found poisoned. I do not know whether it was poisoned deliberately or by the reckless use of poisons for other purposes.

I welcome the proposals—they have been welcomed throughout the chamber—to tighten up the law on reckless behaviour and on the intentional behaviour that results in wild birds being injured, killed or disturbed. I ask SNP members—particularly the Mr Angrys who feel that if they agree with the Executive they must sound cross about doing so—what could be sooner than "as soon as possible"? Do they want us to say "as soon as not possible"?

The minister referred to SSSIs, a designation that has been in use since 1949. There has been some criticism of SSSIs, particularly of the fact that people who work on the land in an SSSI are given long lists of potentially damaging operations that they must avoid and on which they must go to SNH to seek its views. Rhoda Grant referred to the fact that landowners are sometimes paid for not doing things that might damage the SSSI, even though they may not have intended to do those things anyway. It is also true that designation as an SSSI does not always provide the optimum protection for conservation sites. I think that Keith Raffan made some reference to that.

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

SNH has stated that recorded damage to SSSIs in Scotland affects only 5,000 hectares, whereas a total of nearly 1 million hectares are designated as SSSIs. Only 0.5 per cent of SSSIs have been damaged. Why is more "effective protection" required?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

The legislation has to be more reflective of people's views. Fergus Ewing does not disagree with the Executive's proposal to strengthen the role of local authorities and communities in defining an SSSI or with the proposal to consult and provide independent scientific advice to those stakeholders. Everyone welcomes those proposals.

As Rhoda Grant, Sylvia Jackson and others have said, Scotland's natural heritage is one of our greatest assets and the Scottish Parliament has a duty to protect and preserve it. I believe that the whole chamber welcomes the Executive's proposals, however much people may whinge and carp about timetables or the level of detail in the proposals, as the Tories have done. One would expect the detail about issues relating to communities and so on to be in the bill and the associated memorandums, not in the proposals.

I thank Fergus Ewing for his explanation of the acronym "SNP" and wonder whether he is suggesting that, in the unlikely event of an SNP electoral success, a programme of mass emigration from Scotland would take place.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I associate my party with Rhona Brankin's opening remarks. However, while I welcome the Executive's desire to protect and promote Scotland's wildlife I must, as a representative of the Highlands and Islands, voice the concerns of the people who live in the area where a great deal of that wildlife is present. I cannot fail to voice their disappointment about the lack of consultation between bodies such as SNH and the local population when it comes to making designations of SACs and SSSIs.

The agitation came to light recently in a meeting in Perth called "People: the Forgotten Species". The title adequately sums up many people's frustrations. The main aim must surely be to protect and promote rural communities and the people who will maintain the environment and the natural heritage, who will continue to live in the glens and islands of the north and west of Scotland despite the present difficulties and who will act as stewards of the landscape and wildlife as has happened for centuries.

There is a strong impression that proper consultation is not taking place with the very people whose lives will be affected by the measures that will be introduced. For example, those affected by the Loch Sunart SSSI, the Sound of Barra SAC and the proposed Islay seal sanctuary include farmers, crofters, fish farmers, shellfish farmers, clam divers and winkle pickers—to name but a few—but none of those people have any idea of how the designations will affect their daily lives. No wonder they are upset. This is happening because different people interpret "consultation" differently.

Ordinary people believe that consultation means substantial discussion and debate on the pros and cons of an issue before that issue becomes a reality that affects places and, above all, the people who live in them. The feeling is that SNH's so-called consultations amount to explanations of designations that, in some cases, have been made without prior consultation on the pros and cons of the measures.

That, not surprisingly, infuriates many people, who feel that they are being trodden on and forgotten in a mad race to fulfil a Europe-driven agenda on time. They are not necessarily against the agenda, which might bring benefits, but they are astonished and aghast that their views, which—after all—benefit from local knowledge and practical experience, are not being listened to in the first instance.

For example, I recently received a copy of a letter from a constituent from Ardnamurchan to John Markland, the chairman of SNH. I quote:

"one of the major problems which needs to be overcome prior to any joint understanding is the lack of confidence which a significant majority of the people in this area have for SNH staff. It is universally perceived that SNH staff will say one thing at a meeting in order to reach agreement, and will then not abide by that which was understood to have been agreed."

That does not bode well for the future of our heritage, which depends on the co-operation and enthusiasm of local people to make it work. Although some of SNH's incentives are successful, such as the excellent Lewis peatland management scheme, others are perceived to be against the interests of local people, who must be able to earn a dignified living unhindered by the whims of any great improvers with a distant intellectual agenda.

For instance, the people of south Knapdale in Argyll are about to be subjected to an introduction of European beavers to an area of Forestry Commission land. The idea was originally turned down by the west areas board of SNH, which covered Argyll, but for some reason that decision was overruled by SNH's main board. There is irrefutable evidence from Norway that beavers do a lot of damage to young woodlands and to fisheries. Many farmers in Scotland receive payments of public money for countryside premium schemes, one of the main priorities of which is the encouragement of water margins to allow trees to grow on the banks of rivers and streams to improve the spawning grounds for fisheries. The introduction of beavers means that those trees will be munched up. That seems to me to be a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing—or certainly not knowing what the beaver is doing.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Wind up, please.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

What happens if the beavers escape from their so-called enclosed area? Will they create the havoc that escaped mink have already caused after being introduced to Scotland, or that the coypu caused after being introduced to East Anglia?

I have met and listened to several local residents who are against the trial. I have yet to meet anyone who wants beavers in Knapdale.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Come to a close, please.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I beg your pardon?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Come to a close, please.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I beg your pardon.

Why persist with an unpopular idea when the £500,000 that it will cost could be equally well spent facilitating the watching of the local otter population or the local wild red deer and roe deer populations or improving the local fisheries, which are already major assets of Scotland's heritage?

I make a plea to the Scottish Executive to follow the words of John Scott's amendment and build on the expertise of the past to bring about an improved future environment in which people and nature can live in harmony and sustainable co-existence.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

There is a famous phrase in America: "Where's the beef?" The recurrent phrase for today's debate is "Where's the bill?" It is not good enough for the deputy minister to say three times that the Executive will introduce a bill as soon as possible. Can she define "as soon as possible"? It could mean "as long as we can get away with doing nothing". That is what it sounds like today. It does not sound like that to members alone, it sounds like that to the enormous part of the population of Scotland that cares passionately about the nature of Scotland.

The land reform bill is brought to my mind. In 1999, we were promised that bill as soon as possible. I understand from my colleagues in the SNP justice team that no bill has yet been introduced in 2001. Is the "as soon as possible" for the bill on the protection and promotion of Scotland's natural heritage as good as the land reform bill "as soon as possible"? It is not good enough to leave legislation to a member's bill. In response to my intervention, Nora Radcliffe said that if the Executive does not provide a legislative timetable she will go ahead with her member's bill to ensure that wildlife legislation is updated during in this session of Parliament. I must tell the minister that that is not good enough. It is not for a member to introduce much-needed legislation. Ministers are supposed to be a Government. Do it. Govern.

The Parliament is here to pass laws. I have to say that the minister's opening remarks were more like story time in Parliament: she simply read out "The Nature of Scotland"—a lovely document with pictures. As a librarian, I enjoy story time; as an MSP, I expect to see a legislative timetable in front of me.

In "The Nature of Scotland", the Executive makes 41 commitments. One says that all

"Scottish Ministers should have a specific duty to have regard to the conservation of biological diversity".

There is a specific duty to have regard. If we do not have a minister who introduces legislation to ensure that we have wildlife protection and updated SSSIs, the Executive's regard is like a blind man. If the Executive's regard for biodiversity is the same as its regard for sustainable development, we have no chance of protecting the nature of Scotland.

I have been involved with three bills in the Parliament—the Standards in Scotland's Schools Bill, the Transport (Scotland) Bill and the current Water Industry (Scotland) Bill. On each of them, members of the Opposition have had to make statements and lodge amendments on sustainable development—and each time Labour back benchers have defeated those amendments. That is not good enough. We have to ensure that legislation to protect the wildlife of Scotland is in place.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Will the member confirm that at yesterday's meeting of the Transport and the Environment Committee, at which the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill was discussed, we discussed the section of that bill that places an obligation on the water industry to have regard to sustainable development? The member did not produce that bill; the Executive produced it.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The Executive also produced section 47(5), which is the get-out clause. It says quite clearly that sustainable development is at the bottom of the list of priorities for Scottish Water.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

That is a lie. That is an absolute outrage.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Order.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

If Mr Finnie is so outraged, perhaps he could produce a timetable for legislation in his closing speech. His outrage would then be justified.

I turn finally to page 45 of "The Nature of Scotland". The Government of which the minister is a member says:

"The management and protection of Scotland's natural heritage is, however, first and foremost dependent on the commitment of Scotland's people rather than on laws and policies."

What a get-out. We all accept that every individual and citizen has a commitment to the nature of Scotland, but it is not good enough for the Government to say that it is our responsibility, not theirs. They are the Government—govern.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Before I call the minister, I ask members to respect the opportunity that is being given for members to speak by keeping down the background noise. I call Ross Finnie to wind up for the Executive.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Today's debate has mainly shown that most people share the Executive's conviction about Scotland's natural heritage. The difference appears to be a question of what to do, when to do it and how to do it. Bruce Crawford and most of the SNP were concerned. I think that Fiona McLeod's last statement was, "If you are going to govern, govern." Well, perhaps she has been away for a while, but we have been producing at the rate of 20 bills a year since we came into Parliament. If that is not governing, I am not sure what is. Indeed, I want to know, given Fiona McLeod's interest in the matter of government, which of those bills she would particularly like not to have.

The process of Parliament is to introduce discussion papers and to inform, advise and instruct on the final point of the bill. Fiona McLeod is also not aware that we have already consulted on agricultural holdings and crofting communities. Those elements also are involved in the question of how we get to legislation. We produced a paper in March. The SNP believes that in February, or indeed in September, October or November, there ought instantly to be legislation.

Now, what have I done?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

No. I will make one more point about a timetable.

When I became Minister for Environment and Rural Development, it was clear that work on producing a bill was not getting very far. Bruce Crawford asked me what I have done: I have accelerated the timetable for the production of the bill. Let there be no question about that. However, I cannot give a categorical timetable for its drafting at this point. Instructions have only recently been given and the bill is quite complex. There are various matters—for example the need to improve SSSI and other designations, to which Fergus Ewing referred—that will require quite a bit of draftsmanship. We require the necessary drafting capacity. If members really believe that, with 23 bills already progressed, that capacity is infinite, they are wrong. It is sheer cant and hypocrisy to be critical in that regard.

As for having a minister in charge of the environment, we certainly have not delivered everything that we would wish to deliver, but since I acquired the environment portfolio—Mr Harper, who I think was reading the minutes of the ministerial group on sustainable Scotland, will agree on this at least—we have committed to doing what we had not previously committed to: to produce targets and measures and to extend the membership of the group to make it more inclusive.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Minister—

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

No. Fiona McLeod made the accusation and I am now responding to it. We are delivering on the national waste programme. We are doing more on floods. We have opened the flood helpline. We have committed £2 billion for environment-related investment in waste and water for 2002 to 2006.

I was asked about conflict of interest in agriculture. What is the conflict of interest in my funding a person to give advice to the agricultural community—not to be in conflict, but to deliver on environmental improvements? We also promoted the national goose forum. I am not suggesting that we have done everything, but I am telling SNP members that they are quite wrong to suggest that there has been no progress on environmental matters since I took over the portfolio.

I believe that John Scott illustrated an interesting position—although I did not hear it. Nor did I hear Jamie McGrigor. I am not quite clear what point he was pursuing. I did not, in any case, hear any real difference in principle on the forthcoming bill's provisions. I think that John Scott's point was one of emphasis. In common with a large number of other members, he expressed great concern and unease about the way in which designations come into place.

During the debate, I was becoming concerned about Scottish Natural Heritage, or SNH. That was until Fergus Ewing told me that SNH equalled SNP. Then I realised that even SNH could not be that bad.

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

We always enjoy it when the minister plays the man, not the ball. Long may that continue.

I return to a serious point. The minister said that he has ordered the acceleration of production of the draft wildlife bill. Can he provide any timetable for when it will be produced?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am glad that Fergus Ewing managed to conduct that question without the usual spelling error, which he managed earlier. I have made it clear that, in accelerating what we currently have, we are putting in place resources that were not previously in place, in the form of parliamentary draftsmen. As soon as they can indicate that time to me, I will provide a more precise timetable. I will give one. We have instructed parliamentary draftsmen and we have the resource of those parliamentary draftsmen to tackle the bill. We did not have that resource before. We are now making it available.

Rhoda Grant made an important point about extending the debate to marine conservation. That point was also made forcibly by Richard Lochhead.

I acknowledge the excellent work done by the Moray Firth Partnership. Visitors to its site have the opportunity to observe the red kite after walking only a few yards.

It is important to extend the debate not just to haggis but, as Mr Lochhead rightly points out, to the very important area of marine conservation. He is wrong, however, to speak about dragging the Executive kicking and screaming. He uses that phrase time and again; he really must find a new one. It is an old phrase. It is also not true. In the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill we were responding to the long and excellent report by Lord Nickson. The bill's provisions were required and they were introduced.

I want to touch briefly on access, which was raised by Roseanna Cunningham and Dennis Canavan. I have been in discussion with the Minister for Justice on this issue. Contrary to rumour, we are committed to ensuring that there is a right to responsible access. The bill providing that, which has proved extraordinarily difficult to draft, will be introduced. I understand that in the next few days the Deputy First Minister will make a statement on that bill.

Roseanna Cunningham and others made points about wildlife crime and the integration of access. This is about people as well as about legislation. As Robin Harper said, it is about the attitude that we as a society take to our wild species and to our countryside. The suggestion that the great mass of our population is lining up to tramp across the countryside and to tear it down is deplorable. It is an absolute nonsense. However, I understand some of the tensions that exist and to which reference has been made. There are tensions relating to designation and how we explain the reasons for it. We need to preserve our countryside and to have the mechanisms that will enable us to do so. There will be increased consultation and we will take land managers' concerns seriously.

I hope that we can move towards a more sustainable future for Scotland. Each of us must take responsibility for preserving and promoting our natural heritage. That must be linked to the other actions that are being taken by individuals and organisations. We must conserve natural resources, promote access to our shared natural heritage and make sustainable economic development a reality.

Scotland has a rich natural heritage. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to protect and promote it. I believe that by pursuing the approach that we have outlined today we can make that happen.

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motions. The first motion to be considered is motion S1M-2453, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, on a change to decision time.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees under Rule 11.2.4 of the Standing Orders that Decision Time on Thursday 22 November 2001 shall begin at 12.30 pm.— [Euan Robson.]

Motion agreed to.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The second motion to be considered is motion S1M-2452, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, on a suspension of standing orders.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that Rule 5.6.1(c) of the Standing Orders be suspended for the duration of the Meeting of the Parliament on Thursday 22 November 2001.— [Euan Robson.]

Motion agreed to.

Business Motion

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The next motion for consideration is business motion S1M-2451, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees the following programme of business— Wednesday 21 November 2001

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 1 Debate on the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Bill followed by Financial Resolution in respect of the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-2081 Mr John Home Robertson: Regulation of Opencast Mining in the Lothians Thursday 22 November 2001

9.30 am Stage 1 Debate on the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill followed by Financial Resolution in respect of the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill followed by Executive Debate on the NHS Reform Health Care Professions Bill - UK Legislation followed by Question Time followed by First Minister's Question Time followed by Business Motion followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

12.30 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-2184 Alex Neil: Contract Research Staff

2.30 pm Selection of the Parliament's Nominee for First Minister Wednesday 28 November 2001

12.00 noon Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by First Minister's Motion to appoint Scottish Ministers followed by First Minister's Motion to appoint junior Scottish Ministers

2.30 pm Stage 1 Debate on the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Bill followed by Financial Resolution in respect of the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 29 November 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 Executive Business followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business— [Euan Robson.]

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I want to take this opportunity to reflect on the fact that the Parliament has lost a great deal of time and impetus because of the activities of Labour party politicians and their careers, past, present and future. When considering the parliamentary timetable, we must ensure that we do not lose any more time.

It is significant that on Thursday 22 November we will not lose question time and will be able to proceed with a great deal of business, but we are being forced to change our timetable so quickly because there is no contest within the Labour party for the nomination to the office of First Minister. There has been a backroom fix that means that next Thursday we will be faced with a coronation of sorts.

I resent the fact that, as a member of the Parliamentary Bureau, I have been placed in a situation in which I have had to be part of a back-room fix to bring forward a timetable to ensure that we have an election. We will not stand in the way of an election taking place, but we want to put on record our growing concern that Labour party machinations to get its machine politicians in place is disrupting the business of the Parliament. It must stop soon. We need to get on with our business. I shall not move against the motion, but I want to register our concerns.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am sure that anyone who wants to will note those comments. The changes have been made to minimise any disruption to parliamentary business. The important Equal Opportunities Committee debate on the report of its inquiry into Gypsy/Travellers and public sector policies will be rescheduled as soon as possible. Other than that, there have been no major changes to the business.

Motion agreed to.

Meeting adjourned.

On resuming—

Question Time

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

The first item of business this afternoon is question time.

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what incentives Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd can offer to encourage provision of new services at Inverness airport. (S1O-4076)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

HIAL offers substantial discounts to support the introduction of services at Inverness airport and elsewhere.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister tell me what those discounts are and whether they are available to current operators? Furthermore, are they available to new low-cost operators? Finally, how do those discounts fit into the Executive's strategy to encourage air travel to and from the Highlands and Islands?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

HIAL offers discounts over the first three years of a new service: in the first year, it offers a 75 per cent discount; in the second, 50 per cent; and in the third, 25 per cent. In comparison, British Airports Authority airports such as Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh offer 50 per cent, 30 per cent and 10 per cent discounts over three years. It is clear that HIAL offers generous discounts, which have helped to attract low-cost operators such as Easyjet and ScotAirways to Inverness. The same discounts would be available to any other operator that wished to provide a service from that airport.

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

Does the minister agree that it is widely accepted that it takes three years to establish any new route? The real problem with Inverness airport is that its usual landing charges are on average, 30 per cent higher than charges elsewhere in Scotland, which seriously disadvantages Inverness airport's competitive ability to attract new and secure routes.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

As I explained, Inverness airport's discounts compare well with those that are offered at lowland airports. That said, the fact that it takes three years to establish a commercial service is precisely the reason why HIAL offers a three-year discount programme. We are encouraging any operator that believes that it can start a service from Inverness airport to put its money where its mouth is and submit a proposal, which will then be discussed with HIAL.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In the light of recent events that have opened more slots at Heathrow airport, will the Scottish Executive use its influence to press for landing slots for Inverness traffic at both Heathrow and Gatwick?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

No. If Jamie McGrigor had taken on board the points that I made when we debated the subject the other day in Parliament, he would understand that our case for a public service obligation to protect slots at Gatwick rests on the presumption and argument that we need the Inverness to Gatwick route to sustain the economy of and tourism in the Highlands and Islands. Arguments about slots that do not exist and that do not currently provide a service would be a complete distraction from the case that the Scottish Executive, Highland Council and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are making jointly to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Executive what impact Railtrack plc going into administration will have on planned joint capital projects with public and private sector organisations. (S1O-4086)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Before going into administration, Railtrack indicated that many projects throughout the UK would be put on hold, because of its concerns about availability of key resources, notably signalling. At present, Railtrack plc is being run by the administrators that were appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. I will meet the administrators presently to press the case for key rail projects in Scotland.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I welcome the minister's response. She will be aware of the delays that face the joint project to redevelop Gourock waterfront. What particular assistance can she offer to ensure that Railtrack quickly prioritises sufficient technical resources for that project and that it also deals with the limits of the station regeneration budget so that they do not become another constraint to the project?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I assure the member that we are raising the case with all the key people. Crucially, I have met Richard Bowker from the Strategic Rail Authority and John Spellar, and I intend to press the case further. I am aware that Gourock is a particular problem because there are time constraints to consider. We need to ensure that projects such as the redevelopment of Gourock waterfront go ahead.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I refer the minister to table 3.3 in the document "Strategic Priorities for Scotland's Passenger Railway", which is headed:

"Most favoured major development projects".

Beneath that table, the document states:

"The Waverley Route through the Borders was the specifically named project most favoured by"

individuals. It also states:

"This stood out from all other proposals."

My information is that civil servants in the minister's office—

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

Will the member ask a question?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The question is coming. My information is that civil servants in the minister's office are lukewarm, to say the least, about that project. Will the minister confirm or deny the attitude of her civil servants? Is that one of the key projects that she will refer to Railtrack?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I am amazed that Christine Grahame wanted to make that point—it is total fiction. The question is about current projects that have been held back not just by Railtrack going into administration, but by problems that the company faced. I am looking forward to considering the new franchise. That is the context of new rail projects such as the Borders line and the Bathgate to Airdrie projects. Such projects are longer-term projects. The key challenge is to unlock rail projects that are on the books and to which we have already signed up.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its response is to the statement by Professor John Forrester in the Aberdeen Evening Express of 26 October 2001 regarding the possibility of patients losing sight unnecessarily because of shortages of resources and basic equipment. (S1O-4085)

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Provision of services that are safe, high quality, sustainable and affordable is the responsibility of national health service boards. The organisation and development of specific local health services are best dealt with at local level.

I understand that NHS Grampian is working with Professor Forrester and others to review the provision of ophthalmology services in north-east Scotland.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Is not it a source of embarrassment to the Scottish Executive that the resources that are available for health service provision in north-east Scotland are now so thin on the ground that such a situation has become inevitable and is likely to be repeated?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

That is a tired old line that members follow in respect of the NHS in Grampian. Let us deal with the facts. The NHS in Grampian is benefitting from record additional investment, as is every part of the country. It is important that that investment is used well to address the many different and often competing needs in different areas. Ophthalmology services are important and I am pleased that Professor Forrester referred in the same article to the fact that the Government's efforts have improved in cataract services, for example. I am also pleased that three new consultant ophthalmologists have been employed. Real improvements are taking place. Of course, more must be done, but we are focusing on ensuring that that real additional investment is being put to good use in Grampian and elsewhere.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

Does the minister agree that thanks to free eye tests for the elderly, which have been delivered by the Labour party, eye diseases such as glaucoma are diagnosed and treated earlier? The minister said that Professor Forrester acknowledged the improvement in the treatment of cataracts. That is of real benefit to people in Grampian.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I can hear SNP members trying quickly to dismiss what Elaine Thomson said and I am not surprised by that. Elaine Thomson referred to one of the real and significant improvements that Labour Government policy has made to the health of older people in this country. In case SNP members did not hear what Elaine Thomson said, latest figures show that more than twice the number of sight tests are being carried out in the NHS in Scotland than were carried out a decade ago. That is a result of the Labour Government's extension of free sight tests to adults aged 60 and over and to those who are at risk of developing glaucoma. That has been a major success and has meant real benefits for thousands of people throughout Scotland. We can be proud of that.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

To ask the Scottish Executive how a balance will be struck between any benefits from decision making through devolved school management schemes and the additional work load for headteachers. (S1O-4116)