Plenary, 05 Dec 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, December 5, 2002

Official Report 682KB pdf

---

Crime (International Co-operation) Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3670, in the name of Jim Wallace, on the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, which is UK legislation. Members who wish to contribute to the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now.

The Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, introduced in the House of Lords on 19 November, represents an important new step in the fight against international crime.

The measures in the bill will lead to better cross-party—I hope so, yes—I meant to say cross-border anti-crime co-operation. They will speed up the process of tackling international organised crime and, by improving the methods of co-operation that are in place to get the evidence needed to conduct cross-border investigations and prosecutions, they will enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to deal effectively with some of the most serious of criminal activity.

In particular, as far as Scotland is concerned, both outgoing and incoming requests for assistance will now be dealt with here, rather than having to be routed through London, thus speeding up and making more effective mutual co-operation as far as we are concerned.

The bill, in four parts, is a comprehensive package of measures that will improve and modernise international co-operation between law enforcement and other agencies.

Part 1 provides for a range of mutual assistance measures in criminal matters, including assistance in obtaining evidence and freezing it where there is a danger that it might disappear. New measures will help in the fight against financial crime—and money laundering in particular—by enhancing co-operation with European Union partners with regard to providing information about banking transactions where criminal activity is suspected.

Part 2 makes provision so that extra-territorial jurisdiction is taken over certain offences against British citizens and the premises and staff of UK diplomatic missions abroad in relation to terrorist acts and threats.

Part 3 reforms the law so that drivers who are banned in a country other than their own cannot continue to drive in another country.

Part 4 makes a variety of provisions. For example, it makes provision for the authorisation of urgent cross-border surveillance operations by overseas officers in tightly controlled circumstances, and it brings in new measures to combat fraud.

The bill consists of a mix of reserved and devolved provisions across a range of international obligations. The matters in the bill that would be within devolved competence have been detailed in the memorandum published by the Executive. However, at this point, it might be useful to summarise those as follows, in relation to the various international obligations.

Many of the provisions in chapter 2 of the Schengen agreement, the 2000 mutual legal assistance convention and its protocol, and the framework decision on the freezing of evidence, would be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, relating as they do to the practical details of giving mutual assistance between different jurisdictions. The legislative provisions necessary to meet these obligations are in part 1 of the bill.

Parts 2 and 3 of the bill deal with matters that are reserved to the UK Parliament, but part 4 contains two measures within devolved competence. They are the provisions needed to counter fraud, as required by the framework decision on non-cash means of payment, and the obligations of Schengen article 40 with respect to urgent cross-border surveillance by the police, where serious criminal activity is suspected.

The bill is a complicated mix of reserved and devolved provisions reaching across a multiplicity of agreements and the Executive believes that there are good reasons why those should be implemented in the UK in one piece of legislation. First, it is crucial that there is consistency of approach throughout the UK when dealing with organised crime. Big-time criminals are adept at operating across borders and seeking thus to escape detection. That is a highly significant consideration, for instance, in effective police surveillance operations. It is not difficult to imagine that an international criminal might seek to exploit different arrangements between Scotland and England to further his activities and escape detection. That is why it is necessary to ensure that the conditions attaching to urgent cross-border surveillance operations in the UK are the same north and south of the border. In practical and operational terms that position also recognises the potential that, although a foreign surveillance operation might start south of the border, it could feasibly end up in Scotland, and vice versa.

Secondly, the UK legislation would be more effective from the point of view of practitioners and the courts. The bill makes provision to implement the necessary measures in some seven mutual assistance agreements, ranging from the agreed UK participation in Schengen to the convention on driving disqualification. The main issue for practitioners and the courts in dealing with major cross-border criminal activity is having a clear set of implementing provisions across the UK. That is a practical matter essentially, but it is important nonetheless, so that a clear procedure is set out in one piece of legislation should a rapid response be required to international criminal activity that might have a locus in both jurisdictions.

There was extensive discussion of the general use of the Sewel convention during the debate on the Extradition Bill that was held in the chamber on 21 November and there has been further discussion in the preceding debate today on the UK Criminal Justice Bill. There is no need to repeat that general discussion here.

As was observed in those previous debates, it was anticipated from the outset that there would be circumstances where the Executive and the Parliament would want to ask the UK Parliament to legislate for Scotland on devolved matters. The key point is that there must be a UK-wide bill anyway to implement the measures that are reserved, and in my remarks, I hope that I have set out a good case for why it makes sense to include in the bill matters that are within devolved competence.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the need for the United Kingdom to ensure compliance with the international obligations for which the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill makes provision and agrees that those provisions in the bill that relate to devolved matters should be considered by the UK Parliament.

We have already been asked to pass a Sewel motion on a House of Commons bill, although Westminster is pressing ahead with it. Now we are being asked to pass a Sewel motion for a House of Lords bill. That great democratic institution is dealing with the bill that we debate today. At least the House of Commons, unlike the House of Lords, has democratic legitimacy and accountability to some extent.

The bill is a result of EU legislation and I turn to the issue of EU legislation in the area of justice and home affairs. Scotland's problem is that European legislation on international crime is decided in secret by the Council of Ministers with the European Parliament playing no more than a consultative role. As Scotland is not represented on the Council of Ministers, we have no opportunity to affect the development of the European law that we will subsequently be required to implement.

We would have that opportunity, however, if Scotland were a member of the Council of Ministers as an independent nation. Although we might not be able to affect the development of EU legislation, we have an important role to play in its implementation.

The Executive's memorandum on the bill states

"The purpose of this Bill is to implement binding international obligations. There would therefore be little or no scope for the Scottish Parliament to legislate in a way which was significantly different to the provisions contained in this Bill."

That is not entirely correct. Framework decisions are binding on member states in terms of what they should achieve, but they leave member states or national authorities to choose the means by which they pursue that objective. That is contained in article 34(2)(b) of the Maastricht treaty, which I am sure all members have brought with them today. The Parliament therefore has a role to play in the implementation of such international obligations.

Michael Matheson said in the earlier debate on the Criminal Justice Bill that his party's position is that an independent Scotland would be an individual member state. If he has his wish—I am sure that he will not—what provisions does he believe would be different from those that are set out in the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill?

The important thing is that we are given the opportunity to decide how European decisions are implemented in Scotland. I shall give an example. The Home Office produced a document on the implementation of the protocol to the convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters. Hugh Henry referred to that protocol, and the bill will introduce that protocol. The Home Office document contained three different options as to how the protocol could be implemented. It chose an option that would, according to the Government, reduce the burden on banks, and the minister referred specifically to banking transactions.

We have a choice as to how we pursue EU legislation that has an effect on our jurisdiction and we should exercise that choice. It is an opportunity that we, as a Parliament, should recognise allows us to ensure that Scottish interests are properly served.

I wish that ministers would take a more active role in Europe, and I would like to spend a moment looking at their record on pursuing justice and home affairs matters in Europe. Over the first five months of the Danish presidency, the Scottish Executive has sent officials to seven meetings or working groups on justice and home affairs issues. The Danish presidency's website shows that there have been 184 such meetings. The Executive has not sent officials to any working party on the Schengen agreement, on substantive criminal law, on criminal civil protection or on terrorism, or to the multi-disciplinary group on organised crime. It has missed most of the working parties on co-operation in criminal matters and on police co-operation.

Given the amount of EU legislation that the bill will introduce, I hope that the minister will explain exactly what role the Executive is playing in the framing of that legislation. He should also tell us whether the Executive is meeting officials and ministers at Westminster, to ensure that whatever decisions are reached at Westminster as to how that legislation is introduced are the best options for Scotland.

I would like the minister to clarify several points in the bill. In clause 7, why is it open to both the prosecuting authority and the judicial authority to request assistance from overseas authorities? What protection is there to ensure that evidence obtained under clause 6 is fairly obtained? Will Scottish courts be able to review the actions of foreign authorities when gathering such evidence?

I would also like him to clarify the role that the information commissioner in Scotland will have in accessing the Schengen information system database. I understand that that system will be used by the information commissioner in London, but it is not clear whether the commissioner here in Scotland will have the same opportunity.

Scotland is disadvantaged as a nation, not only by not being able to be at the top table in developing European legislation, but by the Executive's track record on being represented at meetings relating to justice and home affairs. That record makes it clear that the Executive either chooses to leave it to Westminster or does not even bother turning up to make its voice heard.

I warmly welcome Hugh Henry's speech. The Sewel motion relating to the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill implements European Union commitments in the area of police and judicial co-operation. The relevant scrutiny committees of both houses of the United Kingdom Parliament have examined the European directive that the bill thoroughly implements. The bill makes legislative changes that will implement those commitments.

We are perfectly happy that the United Kingdom Parliament should deal with the matter, as it is a subject that, in our view, needs to be dealt with on a United Kingdom basis. We must make it clear that the fight against terrorism is being dealt with effectively. That means that we must put in place arrangements for closer co-operation between police forces, customs and intelligence services throughout the European Union. We believe that it is right to aim for meaningful, effective and helpful co-operation.

Our colleagues at Westminster will no doubt distinguish between such co-operation on the one hand and harmonisation, which they could not support, on the other. They will also want to ensure that civil liberties are not undermined. For example, they will want to consider with the utmost caution the provisions to allow police and customs officers from other countries to carry out surveillance in the United Kingdom for five hours without first having had their activities cleared by British authorities. That provision could be amended at Westminster and is contentious.

The parts of the bill that are relevant to Scotland include the following subjects. First, there is the subject of mutual assistance in criminal matters, which relates to orders freezing property and to providing banking information relating to criminal investigations. Although matters relating to money laundering and financial services are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament, information on bank accounts is a devolved matter, and it makes sense to have a consistent policy to prevent international crime and fraud.

Secondly, with regard to terrorist acts, provision is made so that there is extra-territorial jurisdiction over certain offences against British citizens and the premises of embassies abroad. Similarly, provision is made for jurisdiction over attacks on premises and staff of European Union institutions that are based in the United Kingdom. That is not a devolved matter, but the provisions apply to Scotland and their implementation could well come under the remit of this Parliament.

Thirdly, with regard to driving disqualifications, it must surely be right that such disqualifications should be recognised throughout the European Union. It must be wrong that drivers who are banned in one country can drive in another, and part 3 sorts that out. Again, the implementation of that reserved subject would be dealt with by Scottish law enforcement agencies.

Fourthly, the bill sets out additional measures relating to police co-operation, data protection and the Schengen convention. For example, the information commissioner can obtain access to the Schengen information system and inspect without a warrant. There is also authorisation of cross-border surveillance, required by article 40 of the Schengen agreement. The minister will note the views of my colleagues at Westminster on that.

Many of those provisions will be the subject of considerable debate in the United Kingdom Houses of Parliament. We think that that is the appropriate forum for that debate and we are content that that should happen. We recognise that the purpose of approaching international co-operation in tackling crime in the way set out in the bill is to make it harder for criminals and easier for international enforcement agencies. Having a single piece of legislation will assist in the fight against crime, and we support the motion.

I pledge the Liberal Democrats' support for the Sewel motion, in Jim Wallace's name, on the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill. The title says it all; it is about co-operation across the EU in tackling crime and terrorism.

As the minister said in his speech, the key provisions are the implementation of the mutual legal assistance provisions of the Schengen convention, the provisions to enable the execution in the EU of orders freezing property and evidence, and the provisions to combat a range of terrorist offences throughout the EU. Those measures reflect the need to tackle crime and terrorism on an EU-wide basis, and they reflect the fact that crime and terrorism neither know nor respect national boundaries. Countries must therefore work together to tackle criminals and terrorists.

The impact of the crimes committed by gangs on a transnational scale is often felt at a local level. That is especially true in the case of drug trafficking. It is therefore essential that there is close co-operation between EU countries to take on international criminal gangs.

Part 4 of the bill implements the Schengen convention in respect of police co-operation, extradition and data protection. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton rightly highlighted, the bill will give UK police forces access to the Schengen information system, which is a large computer database of criminals and suspected criminals throughout the EU. That is surely a step forward in combating international terrorism and international criminal gangs. Access to such information must strengthen the arm of UK police forces in tackling crime in the UK.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton raised concerns about hot-pursuit procedures, which would allow officers from a member state to conduct unaccompanied surveillance in another member state for up to five hours. He said that he was concerned about such surveillance on civil liberties grounds, but I think that his concerns were more to do with Euroscepticism. Given the nature of the international terrorism that we are trying to tackle, his concerns are misplaced.

I mentioned concerns that colleagues at Westminster must deal with; they are not necessarily my concerns. In emergencies, it is obvious that police forces must work quickly. I suspect that the issue will be the subject of debate at Westminster.

I was reflecting the views that the member mentioned.

John Wadham, who is the director of the human rights organisation, Liberty, has also expressed concerns. He criticised aspects of the bill and said that

"We have enough problems regulating our own authorities' use of surveillance in the UK"

without giving those powers to foreign police forces.

Those are genuine concerns, but provided that adequate safeguards are put in place, the measures deserve support.

In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats support the Sewel motion.

I welcome visitors in the gallery from Hillhead Primary School in my constituency. I must be on my best behaviour this morning.

I congratulate Hugh Henry on his appointment as Deputy Minister for Justice. He will already know that the justice remit means that within three days, he will have dealt with two stage 2 debates and two Sewel motions without stopping to think. He will know what I, Christine Grahame, Michael Matheson and other members feel about the remit, which I think we have dealt with reasonably in the past three and a half years or so.

The Crime (International Co-operation) Bill implements several of the UK's outstanding obligations in respect of EU agreements on police and judicial co-operation. The need to tackle serious crime internationally is a crucial aspect of our general approach to criminal justice, because organised crime is conducted across national borders.

The bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 19 November and will implement the UK's partial participation in the Schengen convention, which, as we have heard, facilitates the free movement of persons. The Sewel motion that we are considering is necessary to ensure that there is international co-operation and that respective obligations are the same in the UK and in each European member state.

The principle behind the bill is essentially to ensure that serious crime throughout Europe can be dealt with speedily as and when it happens and without there being barriers to tackling it. The intention is to ensure that such crime can be tackled with the urgency that is needed. Of course, that requires a degree of trust between nations, particularly in respect of allowing surveillance of criminals in order to detect acts of terrorism or similar threats to national security. However, the whole of Europe will benefit by signing up to the measures.

Part 1 of the bill concerns mutual assistance in criminal matters and the provision of information—for example on bank accounts and transactions—when a criminal investigation is on-going. That means that assets can be frozen and, crucially, that orders protecting evidence that might be needed to demonstrate criminal activity can be frozen if necessary. That is essential in international fraud or money-laundering cases.

Part 3 of the bill concerns the convention on driving disqualification, which is a reserved issue. A driver who is banned in one EU country will, in effect, be banned in every EU country. That is crucial for public safety. Perhaps the minister will clarify that the ban and the duration of the ban will be imposed by the relevant court and protected by every other member state.

Among other things, part 4 of the bill extends the list of instruments of payment that are covered by section 5 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 to include bills of exchange and credit and debit cards—in other words, non-cash means of payment.

There is a need to scrutinise constantly the effect of Sewel motions such as the motion under consideration. If EU matters are being considered, the Parliament and its committees should make an input where that is appropriate. However, to deny that international crime is best dealt with on a UK basis is to fail to understand the threats to our society and the extent of drug trafficking, human trafficking, terrorism and threats to national security. Many members understand that human trafficking is a real, live issue, particularly in the EU. Last night, there were raids on eight saunas in Glasgow city centre in my constituency. I am pleased to report that no person was being held in the saunas against their will, although 10 foreign nationals were found in them.

Each Sewel motion should be considered on its own merits and the merits of the motion before us are well established. EU co-operation on criminal justice matters is reaching new heights. Where possible, we should encourage treaties and protocols with countries worldwide, because it goes without saying that serious crime is not confined to European borders.

I support motion S1M-3670, in the name of Jim Wallace.

We now proceed to winding-up speeches.

This is the third time in two days that I have risen to support the Labour-Liberal Government's proposals. I admit that I am beginning to worry, but I will correct things if I am called to speak on another motion this afternoon.

The minister referred to the complications that surround the Sewel motion. Michael Matheson complained about the number of Sewel motions that go through the Parliament, but that simply underlines the intertwining of the national interests of the Welsh, English, Scots and Northern Irish under the union. Such intertwining brings many benefits.

Hugh Henry suggested that the Conservatives had not achieved all that I would have wanted them to achieve in 18 years. I concede that. I would have been happier had the incoming Labour Government in 1997 implemented Michael Forsyth's proposed criminal justice legislation, which would have done much to alleviate some of the recent problems of rising crime.

I want to consider the Sewel motion and some reasons why support for it is necessary. Part 1 of the bill deals with the freezing of bank accounts. I have a little sympathy with what Michael Matheson said about the consultation process. When we foresee Sewel motions and consultation is to take place in England and Wales only, perhaps Scottish ministers could ensure that consultation is extended to Scotland. That would be fair and right and does not undermine the fact that, ultimately, in this case, a Sewel motion is relevant.

On part 2 of the bill and the movement of terrorists, it would be absolutely ridiculous if we went down one line and people south of the border went down another line so that somebody could move from Newcastle to Duns or vice versa and use legal technicalities to escape justice.

Part 3 of the bill covers a situation of which I was unaware, and that the bill addresses that situation is to its credit. Apparently, a person in Northern Ireland can come to the UK mainland and pick up a mainland driving licence. That is nonsense. Good legislation addresses nonsense, and the bill does so.

I am happy that Scots will derive benefits from a bill that will also affect England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The commonsense approach of a Sewel motion will progress a number of other issues, but I want to return to the Schengen aspect of the bill.

I would never sign up to any move at Westminster or elsewhere to reduce our border controls. Through the bill, the Government south of the border is trying to align the law with Schengen to a degree. I acknowledge that the matter is reserved, but I do not want to go beyond some of the Schengen provisions. Overall, I am happy that our elected representatives—the 72 members of Parliament from Scotland who go south of the border to voice Scotland's opinions on such issues—do their job.

The Conservatives have only one MP in Scotland.

Sadly, we have only one Conservative MP in Scotland, and I concede that that is far too few. He cannot be everywhere all the time, and when he is not in the House of Commons, he has good reasons. Perhaps the situation can be rectified and we will be able to play a greater part in United Kingdom affairs, to Scotland's benefit.

Of course, I share fully Pauline McNeill's sentiments about tackling international crime. The Scottish National Party supports measures to tackle international crime, which knows no boundaries.

The problem with the Sewel motion is that Scotland will not have the opportunity to scrutinise the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill. My colleague Michael Matheson told members that the Minister for Justice has attended seven out of 184 meetings on justice matters in Europe. We do not have the opportunity to scrutinise the proposals, because we are not represented directly at the Council of Ministers. The Minister for Justice cannot give the distinctive Scottish input on criminal matters, because an English minister goes to the Council. That is a huge problem, particularly for criminal law in Scotland.

I say to Pauline McNeill that the Executive says:

"the purpose of this Bill is to implement binding international obligations. There would therefore be little or no scope for the Scottish Parliament to legislate in a way which was significantly different to the provisions"

in the bill. What the Executive says is not the case. As Michael Matheson said, framework decisions are binding on member states as to the results to be achieved, but leave the form and method of implementation to states. I will develop briefly his argument.

The Home Office has issued a document on the protocol that requires European Union member states to locate and provide details of all bank accounts and transactions of a person who is the subject of a serious crime investigation and to monitor the activity of any account that they hold. The Home Office suggests three options for implementing the protocol. The first option is to rely on existing legislation, which would not allow the protocol to be ratified. The UK would be under no obligation to help foreign investigators and they would not have to help the UK. The second option is to legislate in accordance with a minimalist interpretation of the protocol and to allow judges discretion as to whether to grant a warrant for monitoring bank accounts. The third option is to require automatic implementation of requests from foreign investigators to monitor bank accounts.

The Home Office suggests choosing the second, discretionary, option, because it would have lower compliance costs for banks than the third option, as fewer warrants would be granted. Unlike the first option, the second option would allow the protocol to be ratified, so the UK would have reciprocal investigation by other authorities. The Home Office says that, as far as possible, the UK should go for the low-cost option for reciprocal investigation by other countries.

The choice about implementing the protocol is plainly substantial and moral and falls within devolved areas. Given the chance to examine the proposals, Scotland might want to be more helpful to our European partners than the Home Office intends to be and to go for automatic implementation of requests. By not having input, we have surrendered that moral choice and given our power to England, which has chosen the lesser option.

That is why we oppose the Sewel motion. Of course we support international co-operation on criminal matters, but Scotland had the choice to do even more than England appears to be doing.

It is disappointing and regrettable that, for party-political reasons more than anything else, the Scottish National Party opposes the opportunity to increase international co-operation to deal with crime.

It is sometimes difficult to place the matter in context, because particular legal issues have been raised, but it is important to reflect on what the bill will mean for ordinary people in our communities, many of which are blighted by the horrors of drugs. We know that major drug criminals are reliant on being able to operate across borders. The new measures will make an important contribution to our ability to track down drug criminals and to determine whether money laundering, for instance, has been used to conceal the proceeds of crime.

The bill is important because it will enable the UK to implement several outstanding international commitments. It will also help to deliver practical, effective action against those who are engaged in serious crime. International inquiries into serious crime face practical difficulties because of the need to operate across different jurisdictions. We want to do all that we can to support cross-border inquiries to ensure that big-time criminals cannot exploit national boundaries in the way that was mentioned earlier.

If the Executive had the choice and it wants to do as much as it can, should not we be going for the third option? That would allow automatic implementation of requests from foreign investigators to monitor bank accounts.

We have before us today a series of measures that will make an effective difference. If there are measures that we can take ourselves from time to time or measures that we can take as part of UK-wide legislation, that will be the right thing to do. The issue before us today is whether we are prepared to accept the bill. When we are asked whether we believe that it will make a difference, we say that we believe that it will. Those who refuse to accept the opportunities that the bill presents will have to answer for that themselves.

It is also important to remember that we are debating reciprocal arrangements that will benefit our law enforcement agencies if they need to get urgent assistance from a partner country. It will also help to deter overseas elements from coming to the UK to carry out criminal activity.

In addition to the major issues that are before us, some small anomalies are also dealt with, for example the unacceptable anomaly that people with a driving conviction in Northern Ireland are not banned from driving in the rest of the UK, which Pauline McNeill and Phil Gallie mentioned. Pauline McNeill raised other issues and I will try to give further background on them, but if I do not answer all her points, I will do so later.

There will be a right of appeal against the recognition of an overseas disqualification in the UK. Grounds will include the driver not having an adequate opportunity to defend himself or herself abroad or the fact that the offence was not covered by the European convention on human rights. Drivers will have 21 days within which to appeal and the court may, where it sees fit, suspend the disqualification pending the outcome of the appeal. We believe that that provides crucial safeguards. UK drivers must abide by the laws of the member state in which they are driving. If a person breaks a member state's drink-driving law, for example, we believe that they should not escape the consequences when they return home.

It is important to have clarification on how that will operate in practice. If other countries have different grounds for disqualification in drink-driving cases, it is important to know whether the driving ban will be active in Scotland. I realise that it might not be possible for the minister to confirm that today.

The point that we are making is that the rules that led to disqualification in the other country will lead to disqualification in this country. In the case of drink driving, the other country might apply a higher or lower level to a ban on driving, but whatever the application is in the other country, it will lead to a ban in Scotland irrespective of the fact that our levels are different. I can talk to Pauline McNeill later about the other issues she might want to raise.

Time and again, we hear the point that was made about Council of Ministers meetings. The arguments are always the same, so the replies are essentially always the same.

Will the minister confirm whether the officials who are sitting at the back of the chamber have access to e-mails, telephones and fax machines? Will he also confirm that they have the benefit of the documents that are circulated around the devolved Administrations under the various concordats that were agreed with Her Majesty's Government, including those on justice and home affairs? It is not as if the United Kingdom did not take part in meetings on the Laeken summit and the Treaty of Nice. The UK led those discussions in the EU, and was ably represented by a number of prominent Scottish members of the UK cabinet.

Brian Fitzpatrick makes his point very well. Our officials are in regular contact with UK Government officials, and we have the opportunity to influence what they take to meetings and to receive the information that they obtain at them. At a political level, we have time and again documented and detailed our influence on European policy and legislation through our participation in the UK. As we have said, being part of a major European nation that is a major player in Europe gives us influence way beyond any influence that we would have if we were simply a member country of 5 million people. Scottish ministers attend EU councils and regularly discuss EU policy on EU matters with UK counterparts. It is not correct to say that we have no influence on EU law.

Phil Gallie mentioned prior consultation on the bill. I should point out that, as soon as a UK bill is published, we publish a detailed memorandum that sets out any devolved elements. However, we will certainly consider any measures that we can take to improve such consultation.

Peers have raised several substantive issues about cross-border surveillance, which the UK Government will consider further at committee stage in the House of Lords in January. There was a second reading of the bill in the House of Lords on 2 December.

As for the operation of the Schengen information system in Scotland, the system's Scottish base is the National Criminal Intelligence Service in Paisley. The NCIS controls access to information, and the information commissioner will be able to inspect data security at any point and without notice.

On the question about requests for assistance under clause 7, the Lord Advocate might need to make any such requests at the investigative stage—in other words, before proceedings come to court. Finally, on Michael Matheson's question on the admissibility of evidence under clause 6 and whether we can be sure that such evidence is obtained fairly, the courts will ultimately adjudicate on the admissibility of evidence in all cases.

The bill is an important piece of legislation that will bring major benefits to our partners in Europe and—significantly—to us. Not only will it enable us to deal with some small anomalies such as driving disqualifications, but it will mean that we will be able to work together to tackle some of the worst aspects of international crime.

I invite Parliament to support the motion.

The decision on that motion will be taken at 5 o'clock.