Rendition Flights
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3766, in the name of Frances Curran, on "torture flights" on Scottish soil.
Who here today is not appalled and shocked by the abduction of British man Mr Kember, American Tom Fox and Canadians James Loney and Harmeet Singh Sooden, who are all being held hostage and threatened with execution in Iraq? That is barbaric and inhumane. Then there is the abduction and kidnapping of Canadian Maher Arar, who was held in a cell the size of a grave and regularly tortured. Australian Mamdouh Habib was held for six months in a cell. His captors beat him and gave him electric shocks and he was raped. Muhammad Zery also received electric shock treatment. That is also barbaric and inhumane.
The latter three men were abducted in New York, Pakistan and Stockholm. Their kidnappers were not the swords of truth group, but the American Government. I ask every MSP who will vote today to answer this question: is there a difference between the abductions in Iraq and the abductions by the American Government? My answer is that if we believe that it is wrong and inhumane to do something in Iraq, it is equally wrong and inhumane when it is done by the US Government. Or are there different values and human rights depending on who the abductor is? If members believe that international human rights should apply equally throughout the world, regardless of nationality, religion or colour, surely they will want to know the truth about Scotland's role in the barbaric and illegal practice of secret kidnappings.
Politicians in other countries have demanded to know the truth. In Sweden, Spain and Iceland inquiries have been launched to get the truth. The Swiss senator Dick Marty is investigating these flights on behalf of the European Parliament. He believes that there is evidence and wants to know the truth. He has requested the log books from airports in 46 European Union countries and has given those countries a three-month deadline in which to comply with his inquiry. If there is nothing to hide, the Scottish Parliament should ask for all the log books from Scottish airports to be forwarded to the Swiss senator.
Amnesty International has published details of the suspected Central Intelligence Agency flights that have used Glasgow Prestwick international airport for so-called rendition flights. Some of that detail was listed in Chris Ballance's amendment. The Guardian has published details of some 210 flights that have used British airports, including Glasgow international airport and Wick airport.
I turn to Scott Barrie's amendment. There is evidence that needs to be investigated. How stupid does he think that Labour members of the Scottish Parliament are? Does he think that those flights arrive at Prestwick with "CIA Torture Flights" written on the side of the planes? What kind of evidence does he need—
No, the member will have his chance; he is speaking right after me.
What kind of evidence do Labour members need before an investigation can take place? The truth is that they want to cover up the issue. They are not trying to use everything in the power of the Parliament to expose the practice. Labour's Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the Scottish MP Adam Ingram, has refused to answer questions about CIA aircraft that land at air force bases in Britain. If there is nothing to hide, why can we not have the information?
Torture carried out in Scotland is not a devolved issue, but it is the responsibility of every member of the Scottish Parliament. It is within the power of the First Minister and the Scottish Executive to order an inquiry into the use of Scottish airports for torture flights. Labour and Liberal Democrat MSPs are so keen to find out the truth that their amendments delete from my motion the call for such an inquiry. What is the problem? Why do Labour and Liberal Democrat members not want a public inquiry?
Our amendment calls for an inquiry.
I will come to that point.
What are they scared that it will uncover? I say to Margaret Smith that the Liberal Democrat amendment is a cop-out. The Liberal Democrats are in power in Scotland; they can do something about it and yet they refuse to act. In Scotland, the Liberal Democrats are ineffective whereas at Westminster, where they are in opposition, they have called on Tony Blair to act. What they have done in Scotland is an obvious act of political buck-passing.
The Liberal Democrats are complicit in the cover-up. They had the chance today to vote to find out the truth about what is happening at Scottish airports and yet they refused to take it. Innocent people are being abducted, tortured, raped and—who knows—perhaps even murdered. All that is being done by the most powerful Government on the planet, in secret and with the help of the British Government, and yet the Scottish Parliament does not want to know. Its members do not want to find out the truth about the practice; they will not even put on record their support for the Lord Advocate to investigate these human rights abuses.
When people see the barbaric and inhumane atrocities that are committed across the globe, they always ask why so many people stood by and watched and did nothing. Many Governments secretly abduct, torture and murder people and yet there are always those who say, "I never saw anything. I never heard anything. I knew nothing about it." Countries including Chile, Argentina and China do that—the list goes on. Some members in the chamber have campaigned on those issues. They believe Amnesty International when it reports on those countries, but they are not prepared to believe it when it reports on Scotland—how convenient.
Today, the Scottish Parliament knows all about secret abduction, illegal imprisonment and the torture of innocent people. Those people may have been held not 100 miles away from here. How members vote at decision time today will show whether they are people who see nothing, hear nothing and who do not believe that that can happen, or people who are prepared to find out the truth. I urge members to support the motion in my name.
I move,
That the Parliament considers, in light of recent decisions by the governments of Sweden, Spain and Iceland, by the European Union and now by Michael Todd, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police in England, to undertake inquiries into rendition flights, that the Scottish Executive should follow these examples; believes that there are sufficient grounds to justify an independent inquiry into the possible use of Scottish airports by CIA rendition flights, and further believes that the Lord Advocate should instruct the police to investigate without delay whether there has been a breach of Scots Law.
No Labour member in this chamber and, I believe, no member of any another party finds torture acceptable. The suggestion that Scotland has been complicit in rendition flights is a serious one, as is the suggestion that the UK Government has been complicit in them.
However, the Scottish Socialist Party does not have a monopoly on opposing torture and it deliberately attempts to create dividing lines across the political parties where none exists. Just because I do not support the Scottish Socialist Party motion does not mean that I support the use of torture—far from it. For anyone to suggest that is at best misleading and at worst downright insulting.
What Frances Curran says in her motion is that she knows better than the police. She says that this Parliament should tell the Lord Advocate
"to instruct the police to investigate without delay whether there has been a breach of Scots Law."
Based on what? Frances Curran claims that there is evidence that people have been taken via Scotland to other places to be tortured. If Frances Curran or indeed anyone else in this place knew of such a thing and did not hand over their evidence to the police, for whatever reason, they would be abetting torture, not the UK Government and certainly not the Scottish Executive.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, the member would not take mine.
The First Minister, the Minister for Justice and the Lord Advocate have made it clear that the Scottish Executive will co-operate fully in any inquiry into rendition flights. Last week, the issue was raised in the European Parliament and a resolution passed. We will do whatever needs to be done.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. What I find particularly disturbing about the SSP motion is that it seeks to use this Parliament to direct police operations politically. Do SSP members really want politicians to instruct our police? They might wish to live in such a country, but I do not. A fundamental principle of liberal democracies is the separation of the state and the police. Parliament makes the law, the Executive sets public policy and it is for chief constables to make operational decisions.
In Scotland, if there is specific information that a crime has been or is soon to be committed, it is for the police to investigate.
Does the member agree that it is possible for agencies other than the police to investigate the matter and that immigration officers have an opportunity to do so? How can we gather factual information about the situation unless all the offices of the law are used?
I agree that all the offices of the law should be used, but we need to know that there is some evidence that a crime has been committed in the first place.
If the member suggests, in the chamber, that we should just go on extensive fishing trips, that is serious.
If people have real evidence, it should be handed over to the proper authorities.
Were it to be alleged that a consignment of drugs had been carried through Prestwick or Wick airports, the police would go on a fishing expedition to look for it.
Margo MacDonald fundamentally misrepresents the case. In such a scenario, there would be some evidence that a crime was being committed and that is what would be investigated. [Interruption.]
Order.
I have little difficulty with Phil Gallie's amendment, most of which I agree with.
Although I also agree with the vast majority of Jim Wallace's amendment, I find it slightly strange that at the very end, the amendment calls on the UK Government to do something, rather than concentrating on the powers vested in the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps Jim Wallace will explain that when he moves his amendment.
I accept that the Foreign Secretary has stated categorically that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no records of US requests for renditions through British territory since 2001. There is no question of complacency or ignoring evidence. To date, the position is that no specific information has been provided to support the allegations that US flights carrying alleged terrorist detainees overseas to be tortured have stopped in Scotland to refuel. Of course investigations will take place if there is specific, credible information to justify them. However, allegations do not necessarily provide grounds for a criminal investigation.
As I began by saying, no one supports torture. I move amendment S2M-3766.4, to leave out from "considers" to end, and insert:
"notes the allegations that have been made about the possible use of Scottish airports by CIA rendition flights; shares the public concern; condemns the use of torture wherever and whenever it may occur; notes that torture constitutes a crime under Scots and international law; reasserts its commitment to Article 4 of the UN Convention Against Torture and notes that this refers not only to acts of torture but to ‘an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture'; welcomes the assurances from the Lord Advocate that, if offences are committed in the jurisdiction of Scotland and he is made aware of supporting evidence, these allegations will be investigated; further welcomes the commitment of the First Minister to co-operate with any reasonable request from the Council of Europe or any other international organisation; calls on the Scottish Executive to co-operate with any inquiry into rendition flights in British airspace and calls for a commitment that on any issue for which it has responsibility it will take action if presented with credible and reliable information; reasserts that the investigation of crime is a matter for the police and that decisions on whether to investigate in particular cases are for the police to take without political interference, and calls for anyone having evidence of torture or any other crime taking place in Scotland to take that evidence to the police."
The Parliament is united in opposing torture. The motion and the three amendments are very similar, but they also have fundamental differences. I ask members to cast their minds back to debates in the chamber before the war with Iraq in particular. We went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan on the ideals in which we believe, which are set out in the motion and amendments. We stand against the suppression of peoples by any Government, against torture and against extermination. In the main, those are the reasons why we went to war in Iraq and the reasons that may lie behind many of the rendition flights that are alleged to be taking place.
Will the member give way?
Not yet.
In relation to Afghanistan, we should remember that one consideration, which is dear to the Scottish socialists' hearts, was women's rights and the suppression of women.
Our amendment lays down issues with which everyone can identify. We all support the United Nations convention against torture, so my amendment should attract support, as Scott Barrie suggested.
Perhaps talking about the Iraq war is a bit more emotive. When we went to war, I put my trust in Mr Blair and I have openly admitted that I was wrong to do so. However, I do not believe that any minister would make the same mistake again. From what he has said about rendition flights, I believe that the Foreign Secretary is acting honourably. Although I might have felt deceived by Mr Blair, his Government received a massive vote of confidence in the recent general election. Perhaps that underlines why Mr Straw should be believed. On occasion, we must listen to the people.
I will give straight information. It is true that Mr Blair was re-elected, but it is also true that the Conservative party won more votes in England than the Labour Party did, so how massive was the endorsement of his Iraq policy?
All that can be said is that the electorate in England seem to be better informed and wiser in their votes than the electorate in Scotland. However, we are in a Scottish chamber and we are debating the ideals of the Scottish people. We must convince them, rather than English voters who are perhaps better informed on the issue that we are discussing.
I question why the Scottish socialists place such emphasis today on upholding the law in Scotland when, to their discredit and shame, they glorify the fact that they constantly stand against and breach the law in Scotland. Perhaps the motion brings them a little credit and they at last recognise the importance of Scots law.
As for the other amendments, I will listen carefully to Jim Wallace. I feel that the Government of Scotland is already committed to undertaking an investigation of sorts. I would like to know what direct investigations it has made with Scottish airports, because my direct contact with Prestwick airport suggests that there is no problem there.
I move amendment S2M-3766.1, to leave out from "considers" to end and insert:
"supports the UN Convention Against Torture, of which the United Kingdom is a signatory; believes that there is never any justification for torture; welcomes the judgement by the Law Lords that evidence obtained under torture was inadmissible in court and was also inadmissible in a Special Immigration Appeals Commission case; notes the allegations in the press that CIA rendition flights have refuelled in Scotland; trusts that the Foreign Secretary's assurances that such flights have not landed in Scotland are true, and calls for the Scottish Executive to detail what communications it has had with the Foreign Office over this matter."
Does Phil Gallie still believe in Santa, too?
Order.
I make it clear on behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues that we, in common with all others in the Parliament, deplore the use of torture. It offends human decency and is an affront to one of the most basic of our human rights. Not only is the United Kingdom a signatory to the convention against torture, but our Scots common law is reinforced by the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which gives statutory effect to our treaty obligations.
Amidst the plethora of allegations, what can we say with some certainty? First, the United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has accepted that the United States practises rendition of terrorist suspects but says that rendition of a suspect does not take place
"when we believe he will be tortured".
It can be strongly argued that that reassurance from Condoleezza Rice falls short of the requirements of international law.
Secondly, following the interim report of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe's Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, the Secretary General of the Council exercised his powers under article 52 of the European convention on human rights to make a formal request for information from member state Governments—including ours—on the manner in which their internal laws ensure the effective implementation of the convention. Given the separate legal jurisdiction of Scotland within the United Kingdom, the assurances that the First Minister gave at First Minister's question time last week on the Council of Europe's inquiries are necessary and welcome.
Thirdly, using information from the US Federal Aviation Administration and European air traffic data, some picture has been built up about CIA-owned or CIA-controlled flights in and out of a number of Scottish airports. That flights use those airports for refuelling or, sometimes, a stopover does not constitute evidence that any involuntary detainees are on board or that the flights are connected with rendition, let alone extraordinary rendition. However, Amnesty International has examined Federal Aviation Administration records in respect of six CIA-chartered planes, which seem to show that the planes landed at Shannon airport in the Republic of Ireland on 50 occasions but took off 35 only times. That is quite a remarkable feat; at the very least, it suggests that something is up.
What should our response be? I accept that there may have been insufficient evidence of specific conduct on a specific flight for the police to act in any particular case. As a Liberal, I believe that it is important that we not take short-cuts with the well-established grounds for sanctioning police action simply because we abhor the crime or because of the identity of the potential accused. We should also be careful that, when pursuing our understandable wish for torture to be tackled effectively, we do not compromise the political independence of the police or the law officers in their prosecution role. That is one reason why we cannot support the SSP motion.
However, although there might be insufficient evidence to bring an individual case before our High Court, there is surely a growing case to answer before the court of concerned international opinion. That is clearly the message that the Council of Europe is sending to its member states. As Liberal Democrats, we believe that simply to ask the Scottish Executive to co-operate with any Council of Europe inquiries is an insufficient response, however laudable it may be. The Scottish ministers do not have responsibility for Scotland's airports, with the exception of the Highlands and Islands airports, which might be relevant. Rob Gibson mentioned HM Customs and Excise; we do not have powers to compel any evidence from that department. That is why Scott Barrie's amendment does not go far enough.
The main responsibility rests with the United Kingdom Government. The United Kingdom is the member state of the Council of Europe and the United Kingdom Government has responsibility for foreign relations and aviation and airport issues.
Will Jim Wallace give way?
No, I have only a short time.
We should direct our voice to where most action can and should be taken. In the light of the initiative that the Council of Europe has taken, the Westminster Government should take immediate steps to establish an independent inquiry into what information exists within the UK, including within the Government's own agencies. The British Government should also make it very clear to the US Administration that we consider rendition flights to be wholly unacceptable in Britain or, for that matter, anywhere else.
Moreover, we should question whether, in this era of terrorism, heightened security and human rights, the provisions of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation—which dates originally from 1944—are adequate. The fact that private planes can land without needing permission raises some basic questions. Why do state agencies such as the CIA use private planes? Are they trying to hide something, or are there rules that they are trying to avoid? Are there not circumstances today in which the state may have legitimate cause to know who is aboard a plane on its territory or whether, for example, plutonium is being carried in contravention of international obligations? I do not pretend that those would be easy issues to resolve, but if a wholly unacceptable practice of flying people to doubtful destinations for doubtful purposes is to be facilitated by an international convention, surely there is a case for the provisions of that convention to be re-examined, and the responsibility for that falls to the Westminster Government.
In a recent article, my Liberal Democrat colleague Sir Menzies Campbell said:
"Torture is the crime of dictators, not democrats. If we are truly committed to human rights and the rule of law we must ensure that our airports are never used as staging posts for those on their way to being tortured."
I am sure that that view is widely endorsed in this democratically elected chamber. If we want to go beyond gestures, I ask Parliament to give that view practical and tangible substance by supporting our amendment.
I move amendment S2M-3766.2, to leave out from "considers" to end and insert:
"deplores all forms of torture; notes that torture, an attempt to commit torture or conspiracy to commit torture are crimes punishable under Scots Law at common law and through the UN Convention against Torture as incorporated into UK law by the Criminal Justice Act 1988; welcomes the inquiry by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to verify if the European Convention on Human Rights has been contravened and that member states have complied with their international obligations; further welcomes the First Minister's commitment that the Scottish Executive would respond to the inquiry; in light of the public admissions by the US Government of the existence of rendition flights and the interim findings of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on this issue, calls on the UK Government to hold an immediate and independent inquiry into rendition flights using British airspace and airports and to make clear to the US Government that extraordinary rendition flights are unacceptable in British airspace and in Britain, and further calls on the UK Government to work with the international community to review the adequacy of the Chicago Convention, in light of international security and human rights concerns."
I have here a copy of a letter from Maher Arar to the First Minister. Mr Arar is a Canadian citizen who was arrested in New York's JFK airport, put on a CIA plane in the middle of the night, flown to Jordan and then driven to Syria. There, as has already been mentioned, he was subjected to one year's imprisonment in a tiny cell where he was repeatedly tortured. I have the letter with me because I would like to quote from it. Mr Arar says:
"Allowing flights like the one that took me off to be tortured in Syria to land in Scotland risks Scottish complicity in practices that contravene international law … These flights must be stopped … Firm action by Scottish authorities … can help ensure that my nightmare is not repeated for others."
That is a direct plea from that man to this Parliament for help.
Much has been made about a lack of evidence and information, but we should look at the facts. According to information that has been obtained from the United States Federal Aviation Administration, since 2001 75 rendition flights have landed in Prestwick, 74 in Glasgow, 14 in Edinburgh, six in RAF Leuchars in Fife, five in Inverness and two in Wick. That evidence comes from America, and my colleague Christine Grahame has further evidence to submit.
However, when I asked a question under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 about those flights, the answer was:
"In relation to your request for ‘the date on which officials and/or Ministers became aware that flights carrying US prisoners were landing in Scotland for refuelling', the information that you require is not held by the Scottish Executive because the Executive has no information to substantiate the claims that such flights have landed in Scotland. However, the Executive first became aware of allegations from press reports in December 2004."
The Executive has been aware of such flights since December 2004—good on the press for picking up on that. Why have we done nothing about information that came to light a whole year ago? I would ask the ministers to answer that question, if they were here. Ministers seem to have a great facility for disappearing when something very important crops up.
I also received a reply—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it not inappropriate that there is nobody on the front bench during the debate?
That is not a point of order.
We have become used to ministers disappearing when something crops up that is too hot for them, so that they do not have to answer questions about it. That is as per normal.
About an hour ago, I received a reply to a question that I asked Strathclyde police and Sir William Rae:
"In relation to the first issue, matters pertaining to civil aviation, I can advise that this force has no locus in the arrangements that are made to enable flights to pass through Scottish airspace … In relation to the allegations of criminality, you will be aware that where there is evidence that a criminal act occurs in Scotland … the local police can investigate. However, in order for any investigation to get underway, there must be more than speculation. In this regard, nothing in any of the material provided to me thus far provides an appropriate basis for me to commence an inquiry."
The Council of Europe, Spain, Sweden, Iceland and the police in Manchester have said that they will launch inquiries, yet we in this Parliament receive a letter from Strathclyde police telling us that they will not launch an inquiry. That is why it is important that ministers should be here today—
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I have only half a minute left.
We and the country wish an inquiry. The Scottish people want to know the truth, yet we receive a letter from Strathclyde police saying that they will not launch an inquiry. Why are no ministers here today to answer our questions? Why is Colin Boyd not here today to answer questions about the legality of such flights?
There is evidence from Amnesty International and from America that such flights land on Scottish soil, yet we are still denied the right to an inquiry. We and the Scottish people demand to know the truth, and we should hear it today.
We support the SSP motion and we urge everyone else to support it too. I ask Jim Wallace and the Liberal Democrats whether they will back an inquiry by this Scottish Government if the inquiry by the UK Government that their amendment calls for is not forthcoming. It is about time that this Parliament grew up and acted on behalf of the Scottish people. We must stop the torture flights that are happening every day in our country.
The Executive parrots, "Go to the police with the evidence." Well, let us look at the evidence. A crime is committed on Scottish soil when a plane lands in Scotland carrying someone who has been abducted from one country and is being taken to another against their will without due process of law. That is a crime against Scots law and international law. We have Condoleezza Rice admitting rendition outwith the law on December 4. We have the Council of Europe's rapporteur saying that
"individuals had been abducted and transferred to other countries without any respect for legal standards".
He urged all member Governments to commit themselves fully to establishing the truth about flights over their territories that carry individuals who have been arrested and detained without any judicial involvement.
Last week, Jack McConnell promised to co-operate with the Council of Europe. I ask him: where is the full public inquiry?
We have the Swedish parliamentary ombudsman listing dates when a Gulfstream V aeroplane, registration N379P—used by the CIA for rendition to countries where torture is alleged to have taken place—has refuelled at Prestwick airport. Witness statements alleging torture have been taken by Amnesty International from people aboard that plane. The police and the Lord Advocate have been sent photographs of that plane landing at Prestwick airport.
We have the perpetrator admitting the crimes; the dates on which some of those crimes have taken place; the witness statements from victims; and the photographs of the events. What more evidence do our police require before acting? Are our police incompetent, or is there political interference?
I have been questioning Cathy Jamieson since September; I have presented evidence to the police; and I have twice written in the past month to the Lord Advocate, but as yet I have not even received an acknowledgement, far less a reply. In the light of the clear and compelling evidence in the public domain, the Lord Advocate's failure to act is incomprehensible. His position as our senior law officer is rapidly becoming untenable.
What about the evidence of torture? We have the statements of Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan. We have Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5, telling the House of Lords that evidence that could have been gained under torture is "useful" and "very valuable". We have witness statements alleging the cutting of genitals with knives, sleep deprivation, confusion techniques, humiliation, enforced medication, and waterboarding and other endurance tests. Those activities outrage me and they outrage the Scottish people. I receive a large mailbag on this subject from ordinary, decent Scottish people—people who have higher standards of decency and justice than have been shown by ministers in this Executive.
Will the member give way?
No. Mr Gallie did not give way to me.
I refuse to believe that members of the Executive, such as the First Minister and Cathy Jamieson, are not, in their private moments, deeply ashamed that their Government is associated with such horrors.
What is the evidence that the crimes are not happening? The evidence comes from one source—Tony Blair and his Labour Government. Who in this chamber, apart from the Conservatives, and, in particular, who on the Labour benches, can say, "I trust that this is not happening, because Tony Blair says so"?
Presiding Officer, I trust that the Official Report will record the silence in response to that question.
I call Margo MacDonald, to be followed by Gordon Jackson.
I am pleased that Gordon Jackson is the next speaker because I want to seek his wise counsel on one of the matters that I would like to raise.
In the Parliament, we have been claiming Scotland's place in the world. I thoroughly support the First Minister in his efforts to establish Scotland on the world stage and to accept the responsibilities that go with such a claim of nationhood, but if one accepts those responsibilities, one must take the rough with the smooth. It is not just a case of promoting ourselves as a nice wee country—either we are a responsible country or we are not.
Jim Wallace said that Scottish ministers did not have responsibility for Scottish airports, for example, and that because Westminster had that responsibility, Westminster must be accountable on the matter. I want to stand that on its head. What happens if one of the countries elsewhere in Europe that are to investigate the flights discovers the truth of the matter and finds that Scotland has been used in the way that has been suggested and that, as a nation, we are compliant, in that our facilities have helped to bring about people's torture? If it is found that such an offence has been committed, would the Lord Advocate not be responsible? If he were responsible in such circumstances, should we not seek to prevent those circumstances from arising?
Will the member give way?
I will give way briefly; I am willing to give up some time to Gordon Jackson because I want to hear the answers to some of the questions that I have asked.
Is it not the case that decent people work at Prestwick and Glasgow airports and that any of them have the opportunity to inform if they feel that the law is being broken? How many reports have we had from them?
I hope that the member will forgive me for not spending time on answering that question because I do not think that it is up to those people to make such reports.
I have one further question for the Parliament. Does Colin Powell's admission that European Governments shared the American Government's acceptance of the practice that we are discussing carry no weight at all in the argument? That is not an allegation; it is a statement of fact. Does that not lend credibility to the allegations? I hope that our learned friend Gordon Jackson will tell us whether that means that a prima facie case can be made that such practice may be going on. As the matter is so serious, should we not investigate it?
The debate began with Frances Curran taking a high moral tone and suggesting that, unlike her colleagues, the rest of us would turn a blind eye to the things that may be happening. I find that offensive. Let me be clear about what my personal position is. What the American Government is doing is wrong; there is no mistake about that. Detaining people without any legal supervision and simply making them disappear, whether to Guantanamo bay or through rendition to other countries—which is a new idea to me—is utterly inconsistent with the rule of law, under which a Government cannot just lock people up without showing cause to a court.
I suppose that the justification for such action is the world that we live in after 9/11. All of us who have stood at ground zero and thought of the unmitigated horror of what happened there understand that argument, but it is wrong. I think back to the so-called cold war, when thousands of people in eastern Europe disappeared. People in this country and the US unambiguously condemned that. The Governments in eastern Europe said that they had good reason for the action that they were taking and that a greater good—the protection of the state from what they considered to be malicious elements—was at stake. We said to them that that was not the point and that to make people disappear without due process was wrong in principle. Now the US seems to say that that is not so. Somehow the principle no longer applies if in the Government's mind there is a good reason to ignore it. That is a moral quagmire and I do not think that such a position is consistent with the rule of law.
In my mind, the US Government's attitude to torture is even more sinister. Of course, torture is condemned by the Americans, but then we read the small print to discover how torture is defined. The US Attorney General defines it as
"the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental harm",
with his own emphasis on the word "severe". I have no idea what that means in practice. Does it cover prolonged isolation, sexual humiliation, sleep deprivation, forced nudity, growling guard dogs, sensory deprivation, intense strobe lighting or coercively playing on an individual's fears and anxieties? None of that is torture under the US definition, which actually speaks about pain
"equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury … or even death",
and about psychological torture that requires an intention to cause "prolonged mental harm". The answer to the question, "When is torture not torture?" is, "When you choose to define it in this particular way."
The SSP is asking what the UK or Scottish Governments can do. I hope that members will forgive me for saying this—I say it with sadness—but on one level there is not very much that we can do. A sad fact of the modern world is that America can do virtually as it pleases. However, there are some things that we can do. We can say to America, as its best friend and ally—and my personal view is that I would like that relationship to continue—that what it is doing is wrong. I cannot believe that Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Jack Straw think otherwise.
When we say that America is wrong, we will discover that we are not alone. Much of what I have just quoted was recently published by The New York Times. Many people in the US are far from happy at what is happening. Indeed, I sometimes get the impression—I hope that this is not naive—that even Condoleezza Rice herself is not totally comfortable with everything that is happening.
Of course, we must ensure that we do not allow anything to happen in our jurisdiction, but I honestly do not know what to do about that. I do not know what the position is on flights going through the UK or Scotland. I believe that we have a duty to do everything in our power to find that out and, if need be, to prevent the flights. I accept that, but I will not support the SSP motion because it is not for us to direct the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate's independence is one of the most important principles of our rule of law, and we must never water down his independence, even to try to stop another wrong. We have a duty to do everything that we can, and I hope that those with responsibility in this jurisdiction will do that. I believe that they will.
Where are they, then? Why is the Lord Advocate not here?
I do not accept that the Lord Advocate should be here for this political debate.
The bottom line is that what is happening is wrong, and we should begin by making that clear. The minute we decide that, on this point of principle, we should interfere with the Lord Advocate's independence we will have done more damage than the good that we might be trying to achieve.
I concur with much of what Gordon Jackson has said, and I would not for one minute accuse any member of this Parliament of endorsing torture flights. I, too, have a definition from America—even worse than the one that Gordon Jackson read out—of torture as anything likely to lead to death or organ failure. It is important to note that our definition of torture is completely different from the American state's definition. All the examples of torture that he gave would not be considered torture, as defined by America, which also euphemistically refers to abduction as "extraordinary rendition" and talks about the various practices that he mentioned as "enhanced interrogation techniques". Such business-speak shames everyone, when we consider what actually happens to people when they are abducted.
There are three issues. Are people being abducted? Yes—there is lots of evidence from throughout the world that people are being abducted. As other members have said, inquiries are taking place all over the world. In Canada, a public inquiry is being conducted on behalf of an individual who was most horrifically treated. There are inquiries elsewhere too; the Council of Europe is having an inquiry.
Are people being transported for torture? Yes—the evidence is everywhere. Are flights landing in Scotland? Yes—the evidence is that they are. As Chris Ballance said, evidence of a flight exists. A press statement from Reprieve states:
"Flight logs demonstrate that the … CIA-leased plane that delivered Reprieve's client Binyam Mohammed to torture in Morocco and transported Reprieve's clients Bisher Al Rawi and Jamil El Banna to torture in Afghanistan landed numerous times in Scotland, apparently for refuelling."
Of course, ordinary people would not know that the plane was in for refuelling, because that was done secretly.
The statement continues:
"The plane is a Gulfstream V jet with the registration N379P (later re-registered as N8068V and then as N44982)."
That is on the record—let it be part of the investigation that should take place.
We know about the issue because of the plane spotters who were at the airports and saw strange events. At the time, they did not know that the CIA was involved, but they found out that the Gulfstream V was identified as being used to abduct terror suspects. One of the plane spotters said:
"I have seen the planes land in daytime and I've seen them land at nighttime. You never see anyone get off them. Most of the time they are just coming in to refuel, but the ones coming in at night you would expect to see people getting off. But you don't—at least, I never have."
He did not know what he was on to, he was simply spotting planes.
Gordon Jackson commented on the arguments that the American state—not the American people—use to justify the cruel definition of torture that has been laid before members. The US says that, in the world in which we live, the measures are necessary to prevent terrorism. It is a cruel irony that, although we hope that regimes that treat people horrifically will grow to democracy and the rule of law—although not through intervention, as happened in Iraq—we have condoned a breach of the very rule of law and the democracy that we seek to uphold. That should not be done in our name.
I agree with Jim Wallace that we do not have power over airports, but we have power over crimes. If crimes are being committed on Scottish soil, we are involved in them, art and part. The Scottish Parliament has a role in the matter. Jim Wallace's colleague Menzies Campbell does not impugn the leadership in London, but he has made it plain that a hear-no-evil, see-no-evil attitude cannot prevail. He said:
"Because there are no records and because there are no requests … doesn't mean … that extraordinary rendition may not have been taking place".
How much more pressure must both Parliaments put on the Government here and the Westminster Government to ensure that immediate action is taken to investigate the flights, on which the evidence is all around for us to see?
If one point has come out of the debate, it is surely that absolutely no one in Parliament endorses or supports torture or kidnap. I am sure that the people of Scotland expect Parliament to emphasise that we do not support such practices, so I cannot understand the reluctance to carry out at Scottish level an investigation to determine whether Scottish airspace or airports have been used to facilitate torture and kidnap.
Yesterday, Tony Blair said at his monthly press briefing that he would not initiate an investigation or allow one to be initiated because he had seen no evidence, which takes the man to a whole new level of hypocrisy. He was not too bothered about evidence when he joined his American buddy to rain "shock and awe" on the people of Iraq, and he is not too bothered about the lack of evidence to justify people being disappeared from streets in Europe and taken to third countries, apparently to be tortured, but he wants to see evidence that Scottish or UK airports have been used to facilitate torture flights.
Let us talk about what we know. Other members have mentioned some of the facts and evidence that have been presented. We have heard about a Gulfstream V turbojet, registration N379P. Independent witnesses have confirmed that Jamil Qasim Saeed Mohammed was bundled on to that aircraft and taken to Jordan. He subsequently stated that he was tortured there. The Swedish parliamentary ombudsman has said that Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed al-Zari were taken from Sweden to Cairo aboard the aircraft. They claim that they were tortured in Cairo. That aircraft has been photographed on more than one occasion refuelling at Prestwick airport in Ayrshire, which is a ground for suspicion that a crime might have been committed on Scottish soil. I would like to think that Scotland's police force might investigate that.
The New York Times stated earlier this year that, as far as it can determine, the CIA owns 26 aircraft, 10 of which have been purchased since 2001. The newspaper has also established that the CIA is behind seven shell corporations—not Shell the oil company, but front companies for the CIA—one of which is called Devon Holding and Leasing Inc. The New York Times investigated that company and discovered that it has no employees and no presence at its registered address, yet it apparently owns aircraft that have refuelled at Scottish airports. Surely that is a ground for suspicion that something a wee bit dodgy is going on. Perhaps the Scottish police force should be investigating why such aircraft are landing at a Scottish airport.
Colin Powell—if nothing else comes from the debate, let us make it clear to Colin Powell that his name is pronounced Coll-in, not Cole-in—the former United States Secretary of State, has been quoted as saying that
"the thing that is called rendition is not something that is new or unknown to my European friends".
If it is not new and it is not unknown, why are we so reluctant to investigate it? Why are we arguing about who should hold the investigation? We have a separate justice system in Scotland, so if crimes are being committed in Scotland, why are we reluctant to investigate them? Why do not we authorise our police to go on board those aircraft to establish whether crimes are being committed. Italian judges have issued 22 arrest warrants for people who are suspected of being CIA operatives, Germany has initiated an investigation and the European Commission has initiated an investigation. If a crime is suspected, surely we should investigate to establish the evidence to prosecute. If there is a suspicion—there certainly is—that Scottish airports are being used, we should investigate that in order to bring to justice not just those who carry out torture but those who allow it to be carried out. It is an extremely sad day for Scotland if that suspicion reflects on us because we will not allow an investigation. I ask members to support the SSP motion.
It has been an interesting debate and we have heard good speeches from throughout the chamber; for example, from Jim Wallace, Chris Ballance, Gordon Jackson and Christine Grahame.
The Liberal Democrat amendment is worthy of support. It acknowledges the international dimension to the issue, the assurances that we have already received from the First Minister and, indeed, the primacy of the UK Government on foreign affairs, international conventions, airports, Europe, customs authorities and other issues.
The amendment
"calls on the UK Government to hold an immediate and independent inquiry into rendition flights using British airspace and airports and to make clear to the US Government that extraordinary rendition flights are unacceptable"
to us. The message should go out clearly from Parliament today that those practices not only breach international law but are unacceptable to all members here, irrespective of party. Surely we all agree that in the fight against terrorism, torture will never give us any sort of victory.
Moving forward from that point of agreement, we must address a number of key issues. Some speakers, particularly Gordon Jackson, have spoken of the need for evidence before our police forces and others can act, which has been backed up in conversations that I have had with the assistant chief constable of Lothian and Borders police. That is a bedrock position for our democracy, but it means that we must consider how we can acquire evidence while preserving the independence of the Lord Advocate and the police from political pressure.
We find ourselves in a catch-22 situation, in which police forces cannot and will not act without evidence, yet we are frustrated in our attempts to secure that evidence. That is hardly surprising if the rendition flights are taking place. No one is about to admit to torture or conspiracy to torture, but events in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo bay and comments from Condoleezza Rice suggest that torture and rendition flights are taking place. The media, the Danish Government, human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and others have reported that literally hundreds of CIA rendition flights have passed through Scottish airports.
Will the member give way?
No—I would like to make some progress.
Chris Ballance dealt with much of the general evidence that exists. Some of the flights that it is alleged have been involved are suspected to have landed at Edinburgh airport, which is in my constituency. That possibility causes a great deal of concern to people who live close to the airport. However when local MP John Barrett and I met representatives from BAA plc last week, we were told they have no idea whether or not the allegation is true. Christine Grahame said that things are being kept secret from ordinary people, but the situation is worse than that; they are being kept secret from BAA as well.
Will the member give way?
No. I would like to make progress.
The truth is that, because of the requirements of international aviation as set out in the Chicago convention, the airport knows only where a plane has come from and where it is going next; it does not know who or how many people are on board and has no right to refuse permission for that plane to land unless there is a problem with capacity.
The same goes for the local police. I have spoken with the assistant chief constable of Lothian and Borders police, who has confirmed that the police do not know who has landed if the aeroplane is simply refuelling: in fact, the police do not even know whether a plane has landed. It is, therefore, stretching credulity to say that, in those circumstances, we can easily acquire evidence that would allow the police to board a plane. However, on the point that Margo MacDonald made, I would be interested to explore whether there is a role for customs officers. I believe that, under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, customs officers have the power of access to all aircraft at UK airports, which is a greater power than the police's common-law power of entry, which can be exercised only if it is believed that a crime is in progress.
However, I find it amazing that, post 9/11, we can allow a situation to persist in which pilots can fly into our airports but we do not know who their passengers are. That is why our amendment mentions specifically the Chicago convention and the role of the UK Government in progressing such issues.
Obviously, members cannot in four minutes do justice to such an important issue, but many people have talked about the call from Europe to investigate the matter, which is why we call on Mr Blair to reverse his position and to implement a complete independent inquiry.
When the debate was announced, I was concerned that we were perhaps going to get the typical Scottish Socialist Party Mickey Mouse debate in which its members would forget about their loyalties to Cuba, which they have mentioned many times in the past, and take the opportunity simply to tear into the United States of America. Although that happened to an extent, I have been pleasantly surprised at the extremely high quality of debate and speeches from all sides of the chamber, including many by members with whom I would not necessarily agree.
In setting out the Conservative position, Phil Gallie made it clear that the Conservatives—believing ourselves to be the pre-eminent unionist party in the Scottish Parliament—must take the opportunity to point out that many of the issues that we have discussed today are not devolved and that, in relation to them, we defer to UK ministers, who have responsibility for them. At the same time—
Will the member give way?
No, I am taking no interventions.
At the same time, however, we must concern ourselves with the more general issues. In relation to our international obligations, the Conservative party has always taken the highest view of our relationship with the USA and would take the opportunity to defend the reputation of the USA because it is a country that has promoted the case for human rights in many countries; I support much of what Gordon Jackson said in that regard. However, in taking that position, I must say that if the USA is now flouting international regulations and agreements that it once held to be pre-eminent, that would be of greater concern to us than to anyone else. It is, therefore, not only the fact that the flights might be passing through Scottish airports that is important to us, but the fact that the situation appears to have arisen at all. We need to find a solution.
Evidence has been mentioned on a number of occasions—Margaret Smith addressed the issue to a certain extent. The problem is that we will, if we act without evidence, be starting down the very road that we are criticising. That balancing point has been addressed reasonably in this debate and could be addressed to a greater extent over time.
Will the member give way?
No—I am not taking any interventions. I am sorry.
It is important for us to remember that our allies in the United States are among the strongest forces for human rights in the world—they certainly have been in the past. The fact that the problem has arisen is the key issue, as far as I am concerned. It is important that, in supporting the amendment that has been lodged by my colleague, Phil Gallie, I state clearly that I believe that the Foreign Secretary should keep the matter under constant review and that he should use the powers that are available to him to influence the actions of our closest allies in order to uphold international law and treaty obligations when they act, in effect, in our joint interests. If those people are acting in our name—I am prepared to accept that, quite often, they are—it is absolutely imperative that international law be upheld.
I support the amendment in the name of Phil Gallie.
We will support the SSP's motion and the Liberal Democrat amendment, should that be reached.
The debate is not about American foreign policy and I am thankful that the main speakers in the debate have kept off that issue, which is a matter for debate on another day. Like other members, I have criticised the war in Iraq, but the principle in the motion would apply irrespective of what country was carrying out these practices. Whether it was the People's Republic of China or the Federal Republic of Germany, what is at issue is not the actions of the individual country but the values that we uphold. Irrespective of who breaches them, Parliament has a duty to preserve and uphold those values.
Our laws and values are the fundamental issue. They are laws and values that we have held dear over centuries; indeed, we have abided by them since the middle ages. Even under provocation, when in world wars we have faced the possibility of, and have seen, genocide and atrocities wreaked upon our people and our troops, we have refused to retaliate in like manner because to have done so would have gone against the very ethos of our society, so there have been incidents for which our own soldiers or others have been punished for transgressing the laws that we hold dear. The debate is about the dearly held laws and values of Scotland, which underpin our democratic society and have created the society in which we wish to live.
At the outset of the debate, Frances Curran touched on the fact that this is not simply a police matter or a matter for law officers, but a political matter. It is disingenuous for anybody to suggest that it is inappropriate for the law officers to be here. We could not expect the chief constable of Lothian and Borders police or Strathclyde police on his own to risk criticism or his pension—or to risk a trade war embargo or whatever else with whatever country was doing it—by boarding a plane. This comes down to political will: fundamentally, that is what is lacking from the Executive. The Government and the Scottish Executive must stand up for the values to which the people of Scotland adhere and must maintain the laws that we have held dear for centuries.
It is also disingenuous to say that there has been no instigation from the police or others. There was a time, in past years, when the Government of France complained bitterly about Algerians and Islamists who were living in London not being pursued or monitored by the UK police. Nothing happened because the UK did not see a problem. After 9/11, when the matter was perceived differently—lo and behold!—the police could not move fast enough. Why did that come about? It was not because the chief constable of the Metropolitan police suddenly woke up one morning and said, "There is an issue." He was directed by the Government of the United Kingdom to the effect that the police had better clamp down on what was going on and start doing what the French were asking for. There is political involvement.
Fundamentally, we have to look at what other Governments have done. Frances Curran and other members have mentioned what European governments big and small have been doing. There is another example in the international community of what can be done. Back in the early 1980s when New Zealand declared in its constitution that it would be nuclear free, the Government of New Zealand said to the United States that its ships could not enter New Zealand's harbours unless the US Government confirmed that no nuclear weapons were on board them. The United States refused to confirm or deny that, and on that basis the New Zealand Government—not the law officers or the police—said that the ships were not welcome.
The Executive must make it quite clear to the Government of the United States that we have laws and values, that torture is unacceptable, and that if their planes are carrying people who are involved, they are unacceptable and we do not want them to land in Scotland. If they do, we expect our Government to fully back the police and law officers when they take appropriate action. This starts with the Executive. The tragedy is that even Tory governments in New Zealand have more backbone for preserving the values of their country than a Labour Administration in Scotland has.
Rendition flights have existed for some time. Amnesty International cites evidence that it says dates back to 2001 and they probably existed before that. Jack Straw has already said that the UK has refused to allow entry to rendition flights. They are not made up; they are real and there is real public concern. There is substance to the story.
I must confess that I have learned more about rendition flights in the past few weeks that I have in the past few years. It has been a very serious human rights issue for some time and not just in the past few months. I do not care whether it is happening in Scotland, Sweden or Jordan, I condemn it.
The European Parliament has a temporary committee that will conduct an inquiry. It is temporary because current evidence is not hard enough. Menzies Campbell is leading an inquiry for MPs at Westminster, too. I applaud all that work and I will want to look closely at the evidence.
I have no difficulty with the UK conducting an inquiry into airports—I believe that UK ministers have a duty to be proactive on this issue—but the idea that Scotland should not take its own action if evidence exists or if the police suspect that there is evidence is a concession that I am not prepared to make. I expect the Lord Advocate to stick to his word: he has confirmed to Parliament that he will take seriously any credible evidence that any assistance has been given to any rendition flights through landing and refuelling on Scottish soil.
Chris Ballance is right to say that it is a crime if a plane lands while carrying any person who has been tortured while they are on their way to their destination. However, it is dangerous to suggest that the police, special branch and police authorities are incompetent; it is dangerous to hold that view of our police authorities.
Gordon Jackson is right that we need to be alive to the US definition of torture. It does not really matter to us whether it is the same as the definition in the UN convention on torture; any behaviour that is designed to hurt, intimidate or force individuals to admit a truth that is not really a truth is not acceptable in our books. I applaud the recent House of Lords decision that any evidence that is gained through torture will not be legal in a court in this land.
If we are a grown-up Parliament, we should be unanimous. There should be 129 votes condemning rendition flights, kidnapping, honour killings, Guantanamo bay, and violation of basic human rights throughout the world. Our differences are about how we should deal with the real and credible evidence that is required so that we can take action on rendition flights. It is very cynical and dangerous to think that the Lord Advocate and our police have been presented with but are deliberately ignoring evidence that would warrant a criminal investigation.
Amnesty International is an organisation for which I have a great deal of respect. I trust its judgment on many issues. If it has evidence, I will believe it, but I urge Amnesty to meet the Lord Advocate, to whom the evidence should be presented, rather than to Parliament, so that the police authorities can act. That is fundamental.
Will the member give way?
The member is not going to give way.
If members want a mature debate about such a serious issue, we should respect one another's views and we should believe that 129 of us condemn torture and rendition flights. If there are differences of opinion about how to go about taking action, we should have a mature debate about it.
We all oppose rendition flights and abhor torture in any shape or form, but there seems to be an argument about whether there is enough evidence. Pauline McNeill said that evidence that is held by groups such as Amnesty and Liberty should be handed over, but I know that my colleague Chris Ballance has handed over that evidence, so the argument about whether there is evidence is false. There is plenty of evidence and it has been cited repeatedly by many members this morning, although I will repeat some of it. If evidence is the problem, we can now dismiss that problem because the evidence is clear. As Pauline McNeill said, we all respect the work that Amnesty International does and the care that it takes in gathering information. We should not dismiss its evidence.
We speak for the people of Scotland. As Kenny MacAskill rightly said, we represent the people of Scotland in whose name and on whose soil these things are happening. We should be careful about what we say here about things that are happening in this country in the name of the people of Scotland.
I am glad to see that some ministers are now entering the chamber; they are just in time for general question time, although it is a pity that more of them could not have sat in on this morning's debate to respond on behalf of the Executive.
Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 states:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
That is the bedrock on which we should base our views, although rendition flights break many other international agreements as well.
We believe that there are sufficient grounds to justify a full police inquiry; there is more than enough evidence. The evidence from Amnesty International has been mentioned over and over again. Let me quote the Amnesty briefing:
"On 15th December, Amnesty International stated that the UK had allowed the CIA to operate flights on its territory to transport terrorism detainees illegally. The context for the statement was the mounting evidence that suspects were being flown in planes operated by CIA ‘shell companies' to countries where they were liable to be tortured.
‘The Amnesty statement named several men it said had been abducted by the CIA and flown to Jordan and Egypt as a programme of "extraordinary rendition." In each case a Gulfstream V, registration N379P, had stopped to refuel at Prestwick airport, Scotland, on its way back to the United States after dropping off its passengers, it said.
The organisation cited the case of Jamil Qasim Saeed Mohammed who was reportedly seen being bundled aboard the CIA plane by masked men in Karachi on October 23, 2001. The plane then flew to Jordan and the following day, now without its passenger, it flew to Prestwick and then on to Dulles International Airport near Washington.'"
Prestwick is not many miles from where I live.
The briefing continues:
"‘Amnesty said that on January 12, 2002, Indonesian security officials saw Muhammad Saad Madni being put on the plane in Jakarta and flown to Cairo.'"
Those people have now disappeared, but many other cases of the same type could be cited. Scott Barrie should note that Amnesty International has done its research and has the evidence that he asked for.
Those facts and the fact that the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, Michael Todd, is currently leading an inquiry make the case for a full police inquiry in Scotland. If Greater Manchester police feel that it is important to carry out an inquiry, why cannot we have an inquiry in Scotland? The Danish Government has made it crystal clear that the CIA can no longer use its country's airspace; we could do the same. The Swiss Parliament has opened an inquiry and similar inquiries have been opened in Italy, Spain, Sweden, Poland, Iceland, Finland, Hungary, Norway and Romania. If all those countries can have inquiries, why cannot we? If they have evidence, why cannot we believe the evidence that we have been given. Is that because of political manoeuvring? I believe that it must be.
Hugh Henry has previously stated:
"the Minister for Justice, the First Minister and the Executive have explicitly stated that we find torture abhorrent and do not support it in any shape or form. If there is evidence that torture has taken place, it should be—and must be—dealt with as soon as possible in the most vigorous manner."—[Official Report, 9 December 2005; c 21579-80.]
Will the minister deal with it now? Will he now believe that the evidence exists and ensure that it is passed to the right people? He should speak to Chris Ballance, who has already put some of the evidence in front of the authorities.
Scott Barrie talked about dividing lines. The only dividing line that I can see in Parliament is that some members do not, for political reasons, want to accept the evidence. They should open up their minds and move forward, so that we can ensure that the people of Scotland are represented. On Sunday there were demonstrations in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick. Those demonstrations were well attended by many ordinary people—they were not all politicians or political activists, but people who care about what is happening in our country. I say to Scott Barrie that we need action not words, and that we have the evidence.
There is a need for the Lord Advocate to compel the police to act. He is in a position to do so. Contrary to what was said earlier, evidence is in the hands of both the UK intelligence services and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is not disputed that CIA flights land at Scottish airports. I am amazed that Phil Gallie accepts the Foreign Secretary's assurances on that point. I hope that he has been listening to what we have said and that he will change his mind.
Jim Wallace talked about Shannon airport and about Amnesty International. The evidence exists—I just wish that members would open their minds. We have had a good debate and there have been many positive and strong speeches. I thank the members who made them. Sandra White really broadened out the debate and Chris Ballance's speech made some people shift in their seats. The evidence exists and has been produced. I call on members to support the SSP motion.