Plenary, 30 Jan 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 30, 2002

Official Report 374KB pdf

---

Police Reform Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2650, in the name of Jim Wallace, on the Police Reform Bill, which is UK legislation.

I hope that the debate will be on the bill's substance, and that we will move away from a debate on Sewel motions, which we should perhaps have on another occasion.

The Sewel motion that is before us is highly focused, because it deals with a limited number of aspects of the Home Office's Police Reform Bill. It is an important piece of proposed legislation which, since it was published last week, has attracted considerable publicity. The main items that are covered in the motion relate purely to Scotland, although most items in the Police Reform Bill are not relevant to us.

The Scottish Executive has its own police reform agenda, which it is pursuing separately and in its own time. Progress has already been made on several components of that Scottish agenda. We have consulted on new ways of addressing police complaints and on regulation of the private security industry in Scotland. We have launched a review of the common police services and are developing the principles and practice of best value within the Scottish police forces.

The Westminster bill contains four provisions that are in devolved areas, but which we wish to extend to Scotland. They are relatively minor provisions and are separate from the Home Secretary's wider reform programme.

The first item is a consequence of the creation in England and Wales of a new independent police complaints commission. Quite rightly, it will be possible for Scottish officers to be seconded to that body. That being the case, it is necessary to make a consequential amendment to the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 to ensure that Scottish officers' terms and conditions of service are preserved while they are on secondment to the new commission. Technically, that is a devolved matter, but it is part and parcel of wider proposals that are not devolved.

The second item relates to inspections in Scotland of the Ministry of Defence police, which is a reserved body. Inspections of the MDP are carried out by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for England and Wales. The bill will require the latter to consult HM inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland before carrying out such inspections in Scotland. That already happens, but the bill would put that procedure on a statutory footing.

The third item is the abolition of the requirement for police officers to be British, Irish or Commonwealth citizens. We regard the current bar as unnecessary, as do the police associations in Scotland. We also think that it could be damaging were the rules in relation to that to vary throughout the UK.

The fourth item has regard to our European Union obligations, following the framework decision on joint investigation teams and in line with the European convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters. The bill would put officers from other member states on the same footing as our officers as regards offences that are committed against them. It would also extend the liabilities of chief constables in Scotland to include damage that is caused by an officer from another member state who is operating in a team that is investigating in Scotland. However, the amount of the liability would be recoverable from the other member state. Reciprocal provisions will apply throughout the European Union.

I spent this morning at the headquarters of Fife constabulary, where I discussed—among other things—the policing of the new ferry port at Rosyth. Close co-operation with Zeebrugge will be necessary in management of the port. During my visit it was stressed that the motion that we are debating was timely in respect of joint policing, particularly when the Zeebrugge police come to Rosyth to work on joint issues.

The motion relates to limited but important changes in areas where Scottish devolved interests can most efficiently be served by our working with the UK Parliament. If the provisions that I have described are amended in any way at Westminster, those changes will have to be referred back to this Parliament, which is entirely appropriate.

Will the minister give way?

I have finished.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the provisions within the Police Reform Bill which relate to devolved matters, including provisions relating to the terms and conditions of service of constables seconded to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the inspection of the Ministry of Defence Police in Scotland, the removal of the nationality bar for police officers, extending (pursuant to certain international agreements) the liabilities of chief constables in relation to foreign officials from other member states carrying out investigations in Scotland and extending offence provisions in relation to such foreign officials, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

It is always very interesting to discuss Sewel motions relating to the justice brief, as there have been more Sewel motions in justice policy than in any other policy area. That is an extraordinary irony. Regardless of what the Executive claims, it seems that it is intent on delivering a dumbed-down Parliament by playing constitutional ping-pong from week to week. If it does not matter where we legislate, why did we create the Scottish Parliament in the first place? However, I recall that vast numbers of Labour and Conservative members did not want the Scottish Parliament in the first place, hence their derisive attitude.

I do not know whether we are at the 30th, the 31st or the 32nd Sewel motion.

I point out to Roseanna Cunningham that we have had to create two justice committees in order to handle the legislative work load. We have not increased the number of ministers who are responsible for justice and we have not substantially increased the size of the support system. Using Sewel motions judiciously allows us to get on with important legislation in the Parliament, without overburdening it.

I advise Ms Cunningham that I will allow her—as I allowed Mr Russell—a fair crack. However, I expect her to address the other issues—

I have comments to make on the substance of the motion, but first I want to make my point. Justice policy is almost entirely devolved, so it seems extraordinary that most Sewel motions have been applied to it.

What are we paying the minister for?

I have no idea.

I wonder what happens when Westminster runs out of time. Which Parliament will Westminster MPs get to legislate for them when they run out of time? If the establishment of the Scottish Parliament meant devolution of responsibility from Westminster, the widespread use of Sewel motions represents an abrogation of that responsibility but, of course, abrogation of responsibility is what the Executive is about.

Is not it the case that Roseanna Cunningham whinged more than anyone else about the volume of work that was imposed on the Justice and Home Affairs Committee when she was that committee's convener? Has she consulted Christine Grahame on whether she wants more work for the Justice 1 Committee? Has she consulted Pauline McNeill—

I have the floor.

Has she consulted Pauline McNeill on whether she wants more bills for the Justice 2 Committee?

Perhaps we could start to behave like a Parliament and meet a little more frequently when we have more work to do, instead of passing work on to someone else.

The passage of the Police Reform Bill is a failure of democracy and is not in the interests of the Scottish people. For a start, it is a House of Lords bill. Perhaps the new Liberal Democrats or Labour lite—or whatever they call themselves—want to describe the House of Lords as a democratic institution, but it is certainly not democratic in my book. Although there is a Scottish Executive memorandum about the apparent effects on Scotland of the bill, the official explanatory notes on the bill are not yet available from the Home Office. It is extraordinary that we are discussing a bill for which we cannot obtain the explanatory notes from the bill's originating body. It does not seem as if we will send the bill to be dealt with by a particularly efficient body.

In the meantime, in tandem with the Police Reform Bill, Westminster plans to make more changes to policing, which will affect the pay and conditions of our police officers. For some reason, the power to make such changes is not devolved. The white paper "Policing a New Century" was published in December 2001, but with a closing date for responses of 21 January, public involvement and the democratic process lose out again.

I will address the proposals in the bill one by one. Secondment of Scottish officers to the independent police complaints commission for England and Wales, the nationality requirements for police officers and the provisions on liabilities of law enforcement officers from elsewhere in Europe are unexceptionable provisions, but why must Westminster make those changes for us? The inspection of the Ministry of Defence police in Scotland has been handed over in the past to HMIC for England and Wales, although an inspection has not been carried out since before devolution. The bill requires that HM inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland be consulted during such inspections but, given that those officers operate in Scotland and in England and Wales, should not they be subject to inspections by joint teams? MOD inspection reports are published only after they are edited for national security purposes, but there is no requirement to inform the Scottish ministers about unpublished matters of concern. Why are Scottish ministers not to be trusted? Perhaps the MOD is concerned that there might be among the Scottish ministers a chiel taking notes who will rush to publish his memoirs as soon as he leaves the job.

The bill will grant wide powers to the Home Secretary to modify the functions and structure of the Police Information Technology Organisation. The appropriate order is to be made after consultation with Scottish ministers, but it will not be laid in draft before the Scottish Parliament. How will the Scottish Parliament scrutinise the work of Scottish ministers? I see that the Minister for Justice is smirking—it is clear that he has joined the Labour party in his desire to avoid as much scrutiny as possible.

Many of us fought long and hard to win the limited control that we have. I want to move on. The only thing that I whinge about is the failure of the Parliament to deliver for Scotland—the ministers in the chamber are culpable in that failure.

The provisions of the Police Reform Bill that will affect Scotland—because they cover reserved matters or because the Executive wants to opt into them—are largely technical in nature and appear to focus on applying a consistent line north and south of the border. The minister went into the details of those provisions and Conservative members feel that it is right that such matters are discussed, and legislated for, by the United Kingdom Parliament on a UK basis. Consequently, we will support the Executive's motion.

The motion offers us the opportunity to save a considerable amount of parliamentary time for more pressing matters. Matters as technical as those in the bill should have a common standard throughout the United Kingdom. They should therefore be debated in the United Kingdom Parliament. That is not a failing of devolution, but a means to ensure that certain matters are consistent throughout the UK. An added bonus is that that leads to a freeing-up of our parliamentary time to discuss other legislation.

We were not surprised to see in today's press that the SNP is crying out at the number of Sewel motions on Westminster bills that are considered at Holyrood. Indeed, the speech that Mr Mike Russell gave only a few minutes ago simply echoed the complaints that he makes today in The Scotsman.

If I may say so, it is ridiculous that we should spend so much time investigating, reporting on and debating—as we did a few moments ago—a bill to ban fur farms, when there is not a single fur farm in Scotland. I understand well the reason why that was done, but technical details such as those in the Police Reform Bill should be dealt with by the UK Parliament. We would be guilty of clogging up the Parliament with further legislation if we were to have separate police bills. That would divert us from consideration of matters that are of real importance and pressing concern to the Scottish public, such as the state of public services.

I stress that the Conservatives strongly accepted the settled will of the Scottish people as expressed in the referendum, but we want an effective working relationship between this Parliament and the United Kingdom Parliament. Although we support the motion, we have always argued that it is important that the centre should not wield too much power. True devolution means that local police forces should be accountable, and capable of responding to local needs. Equally, it is important to curb the bureaucracy that the police face daily, although I realise that the Administration is trying to address that. At Westminster, we are likely strongly to oppose too much power being given to the Home Secretary; we will wish to preserve chief constables' independence.

We support the Executive's motion to allow the United Kingdom Parliament the opportunity to legislate for us on the technicalities in the bill.

There is a genuine technical issue, which should be considered, about how the Parliament should best use its time and energies on bills and Sewel motions. With all due respect, the sort of extreme remarks that have been made by some SNP members do not help. It is not at all good to attribute to people who take a different view from them a lack of patriotism or enthusiasm for the Parliament. I hope that we will consider the issue in a sensible and mature manner.

It seems reasonable that we should agree to the provisions of the Police Reform Bill. However, because the UK bill contains some contentious provisions, there is a slight presentational danger of public confusion. People might get the idea that the contentious provisions will apply to Scotland. We must make it clear that we are agreeing merely to some fairly technical issues that concern Scotland. We should make it clear that we will not be indulging in the heavy debates on the reform of the police that will take place at Westminster, because we shall reform our police in our own way and not in the English way. That important point must be made.

As I understand it, the bill also contains provisions—such as those that refer to the treatment of road accident victims—that will affect people in Scotland and which are reserved matters. Therefore, there are three sets of issues: how we deal with Sewel motions; how the English run their police affairs, which is the main issue; and a few points, on which Westminster has the right to legislate, that will affect citizens in Scotland.

We now move to open debate. I call Gordon Jackson. You have up to four minutes.

On this occasion, Donald Gorrie is right that there are two main issues. The first concerns whether the bill is good legislation that should be welcomed. The second is the much more contentious matter of the use of the Sewel motion to achieve that objective. Michael Russell suggested that the two matters were entirely separate, but they are not and it is misleading to put them in a watertight compartment.

There can be no argument about the merits of the proposed legislation. Some parts of it were discussed in this Parliament, but the previous bill fell because of the dissolution of the Westminster Parliament. We are doing clearly desirable things. It cannot be anything other than a good thing that Scottish police officers can be seconded to serve in the complaints system south of the border—that is a recommendation of the value and experience of our police forces. It would be churlish in the extreme not to share that experience with people south of the border.

The removal of nationality restrictions throughout the UK is also—I feel strongly about this—greatly to be welcomed. It would be strange and undesirable if recruitment in Scotland were to be hindered in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom. If that happened, we would be debating the much more important issue of groups being banned from serving in the police in Scotland, despite their being able to serve south of the border. When our police forces are doing everything possible to promote diversity in recruitment, that would make no sense.

What about the use of the Sewel motion? I have been listening to Michael Russell—

Will the member give way?

No, I want to go on. I do not have long.

Just briefly.

Well, okay—it will give me time for a seat.

I want to ask about one of the provisions of the bill that the member did not mention—the inspections of the Ministry of Defence police. Does a question arise because of considerations of freedom of information? My colleagues suggest that joint inspections might be more appropriate. Under the mechanism that is proposed, inspections will be subject to the English and Welsh Freedom of Information Act 2000, but not to the broader provisions of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill. Will the member consider that?

I do not think that that is of very great importance. We have already decided to use the mechanisms in the bill; we are merely re-enacting that decision because of the Westminster Parliament's dissolution.

What Michael Russell said in the previous debate was interesting. He argued from statistics—as I believe his colleagues did in the press this morning—that the Scottish Parliament passes more legislation through Sewel motions than it passes Scottish legislation. I must say to Michael that that is just a cheap distortion of reality. The use—

Here are the figures.

Let me finish. The use of a Sewel motion for specific points in UK bills—no matter how often we do it—cannot be legitimately compared with the substantial legislation that we enact in this Parliament. It is time for a bit of common sense. We should enact substantial legislation as and when time permits. As Michael said, that would be doing our job. I do not accept the criticism that to use a Sewel motion is not to do our job.

If we want to make changes over and above the changes that we have time to make here, and if Westminster is in the process of making such changes, it cannot be wrong to use a Sewel motion for that purpose. Does Michael Russell seriously suggest that it would be better not to have the legislation, or that we should use up our own much-needed time in other ways?

Will the member give way?

No, I am finishing.

If we did so, we would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. We would be saying, "We'll do without the legislation. We don't have time to do it ourselves, but we won't have it because we're not going to let Westminster do it." That would be a petty nationalistic policy of the worst kind.

All right, Mr Jackson. You will remember the constraints that I put on speakers. If you have more to say on Sewel motions, please try to tie it in with police matters.

The Police Reform Bill is good. It is petty and nationalistic to say that we should not use a Westminster bill to do desirable things. SNP members can do better than they have done. They are not to be commended for their petty approach.

It is perhaps unfortunate that so much of the debate has outlined the problems of Sewel motions, rather than focused on the merit of the bill—I note your strictures on that subject, Presiding Officer.

It is important to stress the fact that there is a requirement, particularly in justice matters, for consistency. Many of the problems that we face are international and it is important that our approach is consistent, particularly in the United Kingdom.

Surely no one can argue against many aspects of the bill. Let us take, for example, the National Criminal Intelligence Service. The bill will require the Home Secretary to consult Scottish ministers before issuing or revising a code of practice for the director general of the NCIS, and before issuing any directions in connection with that body's operations. Can any member suggest seriously that that is inappropriate?

The bill will allow the Home Secretary to make an order to modify the functions and structure of the cross-border public authority, the Police Information Technology Organisation. Can any member suggest seriously that that is not appropriate? The bill also contains provisions that are important at a time when there is greater concern and consideration about the effects of drunken driving. The matter of blood tests is now being dealt with nationally, which enables such tests to be established as a principle of Scots law much more speedily and effectively than would otherwise be the case.

I congratulate Bill Aitken on his cogent argument that all decisions should be made by the European Parliament in Brussels. It is unusual to hear such an argument from a Tory—a group that opposed the Scottish Parliament. Are the Tories now saying that it is all to be done by Brussels?

As Mr Russell well knows, that is not what I am saying. I am saying—this will amplify the argument that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton made—that we believe in proper devolution. At the same time, there is a clear case for a consistent approach, across the board, to matters such as those that are dealt with in the Police Reform Bill. If there were inconsistencies—for example in the laws that relate to drug misuse—between what happens south of the border and here, substantial difficulties might arise.

Roseanna Cunningham was correct to say that there have been many Sewel motions relating to justice matters. However, that demonstrates the degree of consistency that must be applied in relation to crime enforcement where the crime extends beyond the borders of Scotland. On that basis, there is clear merit in the bill. There is equal merit in the way in which the matter is being dealt with. We support the motion.

Order. There is too much ambient noise. If members want to conduct private conversations they should do so out in the corridors.

I remind members of an incident that took place near Ruchazie on Monday: three men were shot in close proximity to a primary school and a sheltered housing complex. That is why we should be discussing and debating this issue today, instead of being caught up in arguments about constitutional arrangements and Sewel motions. The fact that such incidents are not uncommon in areas such as Ruchazie and have been part of such communities for decades shows us why we need to get down to the real debate—the need to review the police force and the issue raised by the Sewel motion.

When the Parliament met in Glasgow in May 2000, I called for a top-to-bottom review of policing in Scotland. I raised that matter in response to the unacceptable level of crime in Glasgow and other parts of the west of Scotland. I felt that our communities were being forced to accept that crime was and always would be part of their local communities. I stand by my call for a top-to-bottom review of policing, and welcome the principles that are set out in the motion.

Does Paul Martin agree with the SNP that we should have an extra 1,000 police officers on the beat in Scotland?

Members must get back to the subject under consideration.

This is not the first time that Kenny Gibson has raised that point and it will not be the last. The issue is to do with making best use of the resources that are available to police officers. There are 638 police officers in E division in my constituency, yet we have incidents such as the one that occurred in Ruchazie.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Although members did not like what I had to say about Sewel motions, at least my comments related to the substance of the motion. I have listened to Mr Martin's speech and do not have the faintest idea how it relates to the motion.

I indicated that point a few minutes ago. If Paul Martin could ease his way back to the subject, that would be helpful.

I am sorry, but I make no excuse for raising issues that relate to my constituents and the serious issues that face our communities day in, day out. The issue is the review of the police force—

But you must raise those issues within the terms of the motion that is before the chamber.

The Sewel motion is clear that the issue is the reform of the police force and how that affects devolved issues in Scotland. It is perfectly legitimate for me to raise issues from my constituency.

You are running out of time anyway. You have another minute.

SNP members do not want to hear about the issues that face people in Ruchazie and other parts of the west of Scotland. Perhaps we can address the issue in a members' business debate. It is difficult for SNP members to hear that.

In conclusion, it is clear that communities such as Ruchazie and Sighthill have developed a subconscious tolerance of the level of crime in their communities. We have to reverse that trend. The Sewel motion that is before us will allow us to move in that direction.

I would have liked to start summing up by thanking members for their speeches, but that comment would be far too general. Some speeches bore no relevance to the debate. At least Paul Martin addressed police issues in respect of his constituency, which was far closer to the mark than Roseanna Cunningham's speech. When she did address the issue, she did not even know that pay and conditions is a devolved issue. It just so happens that at present the Executive, the police forces and the Police Federation choose to continue to act jointly with our colleagues in England and Wales and to have a centralised system.

Will the minister give way?

No, I do not have time.

The motion allows us to ensure that police officers who are seconded to the independent police complaints commission will continue to have their salaries paid appropriately and will have the correct terms and conditions. The SNP has had a number of opportunities to debate justice issues, but it has chosen to do so only twice in the past year, which shows the low priority that it places on this issue.

Donald Gorrie made the excellent point that we must make it clear that most of the Police Reform Bill is about radical reforms in England and Wales that will not apply in Scotland. I thank Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for making the point that we will proceed with our reforms in our own time.

A Labour-Tory alliance.

Is Roseanna Cunningham really suggesting that we should not proceed with police reforms in Scotland in our own time in this chamber in a separate bill? That is what she is suggesting.

No, I am not.

HM inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland is content with the arrangement that pertains to the Ministry of Defence police. We are merely putting that into operation through the Sewel motion. That move is entirely appropriate. Are the SNP members suggesting that that is not an appropriate use of our time?

Gordon Jackson mentioned nationality. Are SNP members suggesting that we should have different arrangements in Scotland or that we should spend lengthy periods debating a small technical requirement that police officers should be British, Irish or Commonwealth citizens? Nationality should be no bar to being in the police force in Scotland. If we left the matter as it stood, that barrier would remain.

The Sewel motion fulfils our obligation to the European Union by ensuring that, in Scotland, members of joint investigating teams who are from other European Union states will have the same rights and responsibilities as our police officers. Are SNP members suggesting that a Sewel motion is not the best way in which to deal with that technical amendment, which corresponds to European Union law? I believe that it is the best way.