Plenary, 02 Feb 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 2, 2005

Official Report 473KB pdf

---

Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill

We now move on to the proper script. The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2243, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation, and one amendment to that motion. Before I call the minister, I remind opening speakers to stick very closely to their time limit, as I want to try to get in all the back benchers who want to speak and, at the moment, I may not be able to do so.

I hope that I have the right script for this afternoon's debate.

I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on the Sewel motion seeking the Parliament's consent to the devolved provisions in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. I hope that the debate will be about tackling the twin threats of international crime and terrorism, because Scotland is in no way immune to those threats. It would be an insult to those individuals and communities who bear the brunt of such crime—particularly some of our most disadvantaged communities, who bear the brunt of, for example, drug crime and immigration crime—if we turned this debate into a narrow argument about constitutional issues and Sewel motions. Powerful criminal entrepreneurs and international criminal networks are already preying on too many of our communities in Scotland. We must ensure that our police, our law enforcement agencies and our criminal justice services have the necessary powers at their disposal to bring down those criminal empires as effectively as possible. That is what the Sewel motion seeks to achieve and that is what members should have in mind as they cast their votes.

Criminal organisations have embraced our increasingly global world. They can, and do, operate in many different countries with many different spheres of interest, such as producing and supplying the drugs that blight our communities, people trafficking, customs crime and arms dealing. The criminals do not care about international boundaries, never mind internal ones, unless one jurisdiction is seen to provide a safer haven than its neighbours. We will not, and we must not, stand back and allow that to happen in Scotland.

I will focus on the five key benefits to Scotland that we believe the bill will bring. First, the bill will establish the serious organised crime agency. SOCA—which will be a UK-wide body, not an English body—will bring together a number of existing agencies to operate as a single organisation. That will give rise to a number of benefits and should result in a more concerted and focused campaign against serious organised crime and those who perpetrate it. Of course, it is entirely within the remit of the UK Government to create such an organisation.

SOCA will bring together the existing National Criminal Intelligence Service, the immigration service's existing responsibilities in relation to organised crime and HM Customs and Excise's existing responsibilities for serious drug trafficking. Those organisations already operate in Scotland and already have a close working relationship with Scottish police forces and the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. SOCA will also include the existing National Crime Squad for England and Wales, which is broadly equivalent to our SDEA.

We said in response to the Queen's speech that we would seek to preserve those existing strengths and to ensure that the new combined UK agency operates in Scotland in a way that is fully consistent with Scots law and the Scottish context. We have achieved that by securing a number of important safeguards in the bill. SOCA will be able to operate in Scotland only if it does so in full accordance with the requirements of our criminal justice system, in exactly the same way as any other police or law enforcement organisation in Scotland. No SOCA agent will be able to use police powers in Scotland without the general agreement of Scottish ministers and the specific authorisation of a Scottish chief police officer. Further, SOCA agents operating in Scotland will be subject to the direction of the Lord Advocate. Those are important legal safeguards, but they will not impinge on the new organisation's ability to do what it is being created for, which is to hit criminals harder.

We have an opportunity to deliver for the people of Scotland a better and more co-ordinated structure for the fight against serious organised crime that will work effectively to utilise the strengths of our unique criminal justice system. The best way in which to ensure that SOCA's creation takes nothing away from the Scottish police service, but enhances the overall ability of the UK and Scotland to respond to international and serious crime, is to support the bill.

Secondly, the bill will create, for the first time, statutory UK-wide arrangements for the protection of witnesses. Scottish police forces and the SDEA currently provide a high-quality witness protection service, but crucial to the success of that service is the flexibility to move vulnerable witnesses and their families to new lives in other parts of the UK. The bill will put that arrangement on a statutory footing, tie all public bodies in the UK into co-operating in the provision of protection and help to ensure that those who make a stand against crime by helping the police do not suffer for their courage and determination. I hope that all members support that.

Will the minister take an intervention?

No, I want to move on.

Thirdly, the bill will bring about improvements to child protection, as recommended by the Bichard inquiry. It will give Disclosure Scotland the right to access databases from elsewhere in the UK for information on those who are considered unfit to work with children. I do not need to remind members of the tragedy in Soham that led to that inquiry, nor do I need to point out the vital need for us to work in partnership, not in competition, with our partners elsewhere in the UK on that important matter.

Fourthly, the bill will introduce regulation of the private security industry in Scotland. That measure has widespread cross-party support. The most practical and effective means of achieving it today is to extend the powers of the Security Industry Authority to include Scotland. That will provide much-needed regulation to crack down on the rogue elements that use the industry as a cloak for their crimes.

Clause 11(3) states:

"the Secretary of State must consult … the Scottish Ministers".

That phrase recurs throughout the bill. Does it equate to the Scottish ministers' having the right of veto?

The bill is clear that Scottish ministers will have considerable influence on certain matters. On some issues, we wanted to take powers to this Parliament, but some members did not think that that was appropriate. I will come to that in a moment.

Fifthly, it is important that the bill will give the Lord Advocate compulsory investigative powers in order to enhance police investigations of serious organised crime. The bill will also give the courts powers to impose financial reporting orders to reduce reoffending by those who are convicted of serious financial crimes.

Finally, I come to the proposals that were originally intended to extend specific protection to a small number of royal residences in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. I set out our revised approach to that issue to the Justice 2 Committee yesterday. As I said, the Executive is committed to the right to roam that was achieved in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, but we also want to ensure that the royal family has appropriate protection. In recent days, concerns have been raised about the approach that I initially intended to take to that matter. Therefore, the Executive will support Bill Butler's amendment.

Members should be clear that the debate ought to be about the five key elements of the bill that I have set out—they are the real priorities in the fight against crime and to lose those measures would benefit only one group in society. The dividing line is clear: do members want to vote to ensure that we have the powers to deal with serious and organised criminals or do we want the criminals to benefit? That is the hard choice for members today. I believe that all members should join me and the members of the Executive and the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition in sending out a tough message to those criminals that there is no hiding place in Scotland for their activities and no safe haven from the forces of law and order, whether they are devolved to Holyrood or reserved to Westminster. Members should bear that in mind when they cast their votes, because the public will be watching.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the importance of building safe and secure communities and agrees that the provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill that relate to devolved matters and those that relate to the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers should be considered by the UK Parliament.

My amendment, if agreed to, will remove from the bill the power of Scottish ministers to designate specific sites in Scotland in relation to Crown land, or land owned by the Queen or her heir in a private capacity. However, I wish to make it crystal clear to the chamber that that does not mean that I am convinced by the arguments of those who have sought in the past week to characterise the power as an attempt by the Executive to create a law of trespass or to undermine the right to roam under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. That is not the case.

I accept that members from all parts of the chamber, including Labour members of the Justice 2 Committee, have raised reasoned concerns about the power, specifically in regard to curtilage, the desirability of using the affirmative procedure and the time that a designation would be in place before the Parliament would be able to consider whether or not to revoke it. I am sure that those concerns were legitimate. They were raised by many members, including coalition colleagues in the Liberal Democrats and independents such as Dennis Canavan. I look forward to hearing the matters explored as the debate proceeds.

Nevertheless, I remain wholly unconvinced that the power to designate a site would have led to what some members feared regarding access. I remain convinced that the ministerial team's intent, as outlined by Hugh Henry in his evidence to the Justice 2 Committee on 25 January, has been consistent, clear and unambiguous. In answer to Stewart Maxwell, Mr Henry said that the power

"would not be a catch-all to stop people using their existing right of access to large areas of open countryside."

He added that the power

"would not automatically apply to a whole estate and stretch for miles and miles."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 25 January 2005; c 1371.]

That, to me, is crystal clear.

Will the member confirm that the bill says no such thing? The power is unlimited. It is not limited by the fact that the current minister says that it is. The bill allows that the minister could, if he so wished, apply the power to the whole estate. The bill does not say what Mr Butler claims it does, no matter what the minister says.

Mr Maxwell is allowing his dogmatic interpretation of Sewel motions to get in the way of his reason. I regret that. It is very clear that what I said before his intervention is the case.

In answer to my committee colleague Maureen Macmillan, the minister stated:

"I give an assurance that the power will not cut across the general provisions of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 25 January 2005; c 1372.]

That, to me, is a comprehensive and unmistakable assurance.

No thank you, Mr Rumbles.

The characterisation of the power as something other than it is has—as the Minister for Justice candidly admitted to the Justice 2 Committee yesterday—led to a situation in which continuing to pursue that one aspect could endanger the many other important provisions in the rest of the bill. My amendment seeks to ensure that those provisions—which will allow, as the minister said, for the building of safe and secure communities—will be agreed to and not swept away in the confusion over that one particular power. That confusion has been created by the Scottish National Party and the Tories for their own opportunistic party-political ends. That is absolutely clear.

The fact that the power of designation will not be ceded to Scottish ministers and the ability to scrutinise the operation of the power will not be afforded to this Parliament is ironic. That has not happened because of the legitimate concerns of many members; it has happened because of the disingenuous and exaggerated scaremongering of the nationalists and the Tories. Neither of those parties will vote for the Sewel motion, even if it is amended. They are not interested in acquiring additional powers for this Parliament to exercise in the interests of the Scottish people. Narrow political self-interest is all that motivates them. It is shameful behaviour. It is to be deplored.

I move amendment S2M-2243.2, to leave out from "should" to end and insert:

", apart from those currently contained in clauses 124, 125(3), 127 and 160(5) and (6), should be considered by the UK Parliament."

We live in troubled times, but Scottish National Party members fully support our police and we prefer to take the advice of the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation than to listen to the words of the minister.

The rights and wrongs of Sewel motions have been debated endlessly, within and without this chamber; the pros and cons—never mind the attitudes and positions of each party regarding their use—have been well rehearsed and are well known. Therefore, I do not propose to comment at length on the procedure and will concentrate on the substantive principles at issue. However, it would be remiss of me not to say that, given the significance of the proposals and their effect on a variety of critical areas of justice within our nation, a fuller debate and more in-depth scrutiny were and are surely deserved. Whether from a legal tradition or land aspiration perspective, there was and is considerable cause for concern, which must surely be reflected not just in the time allotted in the chamber, but in the nature of the scrutiny provided.

The Executive has withdrawn a major part of the grounds for objection. Its retreat in view of the clear hostility to the proposal that would have created a crime of trespass on Crown land in Scotland is welcome. The plan was unwanted and unnecessary. It was alien to our legal tradition and contrary to our desired direction on land use. The Executive's retreat is a sensible political move, but it is also the correct thing to do. Notwithstanding what Mr Butler said, the Executive should be applauded, not derided, for that.

However, the plan should never have been considered in the first place and the Executive would do well to take note of the position in which it placed itself by simply rubber-stamping London Labour's policies. We have a Parliament now and the Executive must act as our Government. Power brings responsibility as well as rights. The Executive cannot regularly abrogate responsibility nor abdicate decision making. This institution is here to reflect Scotland's unique society and significant diversity from south of the border. The Executive's failure to do justice to serious issues in the chamber demeans it and devalues the Parliament.

Let us also dispel the myth that, by rejecting the imposition of a law of trespass on Crown lands, the Executive is denying itself and, consequently, this Parliament powers. The position was that it sought to be able to designate Crown lands as areas in which a crime of trespass could be committed. There might be inadequacies in the law of England, but there was none in the laws of Scotland. Offences of breach of the peace through to terrorism existed as charges and remedies. The Executive has declined the right to impose an unnecessary, unwanted and alien concept on us.

Will the member give way?

Not at the moment.

The Executive has not, as a consequence, ceded any powers that previously existed within the office of the UK Home Secretary to designate matters under the broader interests of national security.

Will the member give way?

Not at the moment.

Those powers still remain the Home Secretary's right and fiefdom. National security is and was a reserved issue, not simply under the Scotland Act 1998, but under these proposals. The Home Secretary did not have to consult Scottish ministers on a law of trespass on Crown lands. Thankfully, that law has not been created and therefore consultation is unnecessary. However, the power in relation to national security remains, as it was always, within the Home Secretary's prerogative. So much for a national Parliament or justice minister of any substance. We remain beholden to the grace and favour of a man not noted for his liberality and we are subject to unilateral and arbitrary actions, as he is one of the Blair regime.

Although we welcome the decision to remove the issue relating to trespass, our opposition remains. The Ramblers Association and the Scottish Police Federation are not noted for seeking political controversy, but the issues on which they have expressed concerns on behalf of their members are serious. Our objection remains, because although the concerns of one organisation might have been allayed, the fears of the other most certainly have not. All members received a letter from the general secretary of the SPF. It was not simply a note of objections, but a three-page document. It was not written in umbrage; it was the result of serious concerns that arose. We would do well to treat it with the dignity and gravity that it merits. Members were also provided with a copy of the response from the minister, which neither answers the points that have been raised nor allays the fears that have arisen.

The Scottish police are not subject to political interference and the operational independence of the chief constable is sacrosanct—those are fundamental principles. We in Scotland have opposed a unitary police force and sought to preserve the independence of local services. The measure that Charles Clarke is driving forward, to impose his will, is against our position and is anathema. The minister stated in her response:

"No UK Minister can direct Scottish police forces. Only Scottish Ministers would be able to exercise this power."

The minister might be more liberal and trustworthy than Mr Clarke, but that does not negate the point that the proposals constitute political interference and political direction. Whether that is from Mr Clarke or the minister, it is simply wrong and unacceptable.

You must finish now, Mr MacAskill.

I am just finishing.

There is no desire in Scotland for an organisation such as the CRS, the carabinieri or any other quasi-military outfit. For those reasons, the motion must be opposed. Amended it might have been; satisfactory it certainly is not.

The Scottish Executive's handling of the Westminster Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill is a model of devolution in disarray. Not only does it call into question the ability of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats to understand what devolution is about, but it exposes serious fault lines in any coherent or sensible approach by the Scottish Executive to the principle of Seweling.

The mechanism and principle of Sewel motions are sound and are supported by my party. Sewel motions represent a workable arrangement by which Westminster can legislate on issues that are predominantly UK-wide in application. The additional safeguard at the Scottish Parliament end is that relevant committees can consider a Sewel motion by taking evidence, questioning ministers and reporting to the Parliament. However, the Executive's behaviour makes a mockery of that aspect of the process, which I presume was conceived to provide the best information to the Parliament before we make a decision on a Sewel motion.

Such was the time limit that the Executive insisted on in this case—despite opposition last week to the business motion—that the Justice 2 Committee, of which I am convener, took evidence on the matter last week, considered six items of written evidence and was required yesterday to conclude a report for the purpose of today's debate. By any standards, that was a challenging proposition. However, when, during yesterday's committee meeting, there was delivered to my clerks a supplementary memorandum from the Executive—accompanied by an indication that the minister, appearing before the committee at that point in connection with another matter, was willing to speak to the memorandum and take questions from members—the situation became risible. I congratulate my committee colleagues on managing to produce any kind of report given that, by necessity, they had to consider a Sewel motion that the minister had indicated would be amended in terms that were not available to the committee prior to the final adjustment of the report. As a demonstration of responsible handling of legislation and respect for the committee system of the Parliament, the Executive's behaviour has been a lamentable charade.

However, that deals only with the process; let me turn specifically to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. There is an argument that issues such as compulsory investigative powers, financial reporting orders and other measures included in the bill are technical adjustments and, as such, could properly be dealt with under the Sewel procedure and be supported. Ironically, however, those are not the issues that seem to have loomed large in the Executive's thinking. According to the Minister for Parliamentary Business in a broadcast on Sunday, the big issue is the regulation of private security in Scotland. If that is a justification for Seweling—

Perhaps Annabel Goldie would be prepared to come to the streets of Glasgow and tell the people there why it is not a priority for her party to protect them by regulating private security.

The point that I was making was that it is bizarre if that is the justification for Seweling the bill, because the bill will simply apply the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to Scotland. Why did the Executive not use a Sewel motion when that legislation was being dealt with so that we could have had a debate on it at that point? Furthermore, at this point, why not let the Scottish Parliament debate the proposals?

The worrying feature of the bill is the proposed imposition of a serious organised crime agency. Quite simply, that proposal is ill conceived. It is a recipe for tension and confusion. The Liberal Democrats have been distracted by the peripheral issue of trespass. They have been induced to roll over by the Labour amendment and have totally failed to see the substance of the issues and to oppose the Sewel motion. I believe in fighting crime and terrorism, but I also believe that we have excellent institutions in Scotland in our criminal justice system and our police forces. Furthermore, we have a devolved Government that is responsible for law and order. We now have the unbelievable irony of seeing the Liberal Democrats vote for a Labour amendment that will deny a role to Scottish ministers on the very issue that they are concerned about—the amendment will leave that matter in the legislative hands of Westminster.

However, if the position of the Liberal Democrats is untenable, what about the position of the First Minister? Last Thursday, in relation to the trespass issue, he said:

"The absolutely crucial point to make is that the Scottish Parliament will have the final say in any decisions that are taken on the matter."—[Official Report, 27 January 2005; c 13988.]

Mr Butler's amendment shreds the First Minister's words of last week. What a mess. What a sorry day for devolution. My party will oppose the amendment and the Sewel motion.

I say at the outset that, contrary to what Ms Goldie said, the Minister for Justice has approached the issue in an open way and has responded to concerns that have arisen as the bill has proceeded at Westminster. She deserves credit for that, as it shows that she not only listens but is responsive. Comments from Opposition parties such as, "This is a Sewel too far," are intellectually unsound. The issue is not the number of Sewel motions but how they are used and the level of parliamentary scrutiny—either at Westminster or at Holyrood—of legislation that affects Scottish citizens.

We live in a united kingdom—that is the reality, even though some members oppose it. A balance is always required between the need to ensure that we have legislation in Scotland that is suited to our circumstances, which may well differ from those south of the border, and the fact that there is a cross-border interest in issues such as immigration, organised crime and customs. Criminals who operate in the UK will be the first to look for gaps in co-operation, fault lines in legislation or loopholes in police powers. A criminal organisation that is based in Glasgow or elsewhere in Scotland will know no boundaries across the globe, never mind within the UK. Increasingly, crime has an international dimension. It is therefore important that the bill that is being taken through Westminster be passed.

Concern has been raised about the independence of chief police officers in Scotland and there is concern that the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 will be undermined by the definition of SOCA agents. Members will know that section 11 of the 1967 act allows ministers to intervene in police matters if it appears

"to be expedient in the interests of public safety or order that any police force should be reinforced or should receive other assistance".

Mr Henry told the Justice 2 Committee that that power has not been used because negotiations and dialogue can resolve most of the tensions that may or may not exist. I understand the deployment of that principle to the relationship between SOCA, the Scottish ministers, the SDEA and the police. A service level agreement will be drawn up on the functions that the SDEA will carry out as a crime agency for SOCA. That is positive, but I ask the minister to consider the following area in which there will be differences under the bill from the situation with regard to internal Scottish discussions with chief police constables. If the relationship between SOCA, the police, the SDEA and ministers is to be effective, we will need transparent, accountable relationships between Scottish ministers and SOCA's sponsor department, which is the Home Office.

Will the member take an intervention?

Not at the moment. The member will forgive me, but time is limited.

A service level agreement is required with the Home Office. As we know, SOCA will be a crime-first agency, but its responsibilities will cover immigration and customs, too. Because criminal law is devolved, clarity in relation to answerability, the direction of operations and public accountability is important. I acknowledge that the Deputy Minister for Justice said that the Executive is

"introducing a statutory requirement for those agencies to be accountable in an appropriate way through Scottish ministers to the Parliament."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee 25 January 2005; c 1356.]

However, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and others have concerns about that. A clear memorandum of understanding between Scottish ministers and the Home Office, as SOCA's sponsoring department, would offer assurances that are more robust than a service level agreement.

The bill brings forward other measures that are positive, particularly on the regulation of the private security industry, witness protection and child protection. The revised memorandum on the designation of areas where an offence would be committed by an intruder is positive, as it allows further consideration not about the extent of areas to be designated, but about the necessity of such an offence in Scotland—both the necessity to secure prosecutions of intruders who enter areas that they should not be in and the necessity for a deterrent. I applaud the minister for seeking to work with the Parliament's justice committees to scrutinise the necessity of such an offence in Scottish law and I look forward to further discussions on the matter.

I thank the Executive for agreeing to amend its original Sewel motion and for apparently persuading the Home Secretary to amend the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill so that Scottish ministers will not have the power to restrict or abolish the right of public access to land in Scotland that belongs to the Queen or to the Prince of Wales in their private capacities.

When the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was going through Parliament, I persuaded the Executive and Parliament to accept my amendment to extend the right of access to land that belongs to the Queen in her private capacity, such as Balmoral estate, which contains some of the most scenic countryside in Scotland. The mountains, glens, lochs and rivers of Scotland are not merely the property of royalty or landed gentry—they are part of our national heritage.

The right of responsible access was enshrined in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003—one of the most radical and progressive acts that Parliament has passed. I welcome the fact that the Scottish ministers will not be given the power to undermine that act. I say to Annabel Goldie that the issue is not, as she claims, peripheral; rather, it is a great victory for the people and their right of access to the countryside.

Bill Butler's amendment would certainly be an improvement on the Scottish Executive's original position, but it does not go far enough, in my humble opinion. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill has other important provisions that apply to Scotland and which should be debated and decided in this Parliament, rather than be left to Westminster.

The way in which the Scottish Executive and the Home Office have handled the matter exposes a weakness and possibly an abuse of the Sewel convention. Even before this Parliament has approved any relevant Sewel motion, the Westminster Parliament was amending the bill to cover devolved matters that are this Parliament's responsibility. By doing that, the Westminster Parliament has treated this Parliament with disdain. The question arises: are Sewel motions worth the paper on which they are written?

I hope that the Procedures Committee will study the matter in detail and that it will produce recommendations that will ensure that Parliament exercises the functions that it was established to exercise and that Westminster is never again allowed to treat the Scottish Parliament with contempt.

I was impressed by Jeremy Purvis's plea to abolish Scots law, the Parliament and the distinctive nature of Scotland, which are so inconvenient in the United Kingdom context.

Alternatively, as the opening words of the bill say, this Parliament can

"by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal,"

legislate for Scotland. Ladies and gentlemen, I prefer to legislate by the democratic decision of the people in this place, who understand Scotland's needs and traditions.

I will highlight a few points that we would address if we were to discuss the content of the bill. Clause 2(3) refers to the Serious Fraud Office. Scotland has no serious fraud office, so SOCA's powers in Scotland will exceed its powers in England.

Clause 3(4)(c) appears to give water bailiffs power to act in a particular way under the bill and clause 6 says that

"SOCA must send a copy of the annual plan to … the Scottish Ministers".

However, unlike in England, it is not required that local authorities in Scotland be shown the annual plan—I refer to clause 6(8). Similarly, under clause 7(5), local authorities will not see the annual reports.

Clause 55 refers to an offence under schedule 4 to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and to common law thereafter. That raises huge issues, which we would discuss in Scotland if we could.

Clauses 59, 56 and 57 deal with restrictions on the use of statements and will take people outside the criminal justice system. The challenge is for Westminster to delete the iniquitous power to create an offence of trespass in this country.

I have never had trouble with understanding where the SNP comes from. It is a nationalist party and does not support the UK, so why should it support the bill? However, only Stewart Stevenson would trivialise the debate by focusing on water bailiffs. Whether or not we agree about the borders, we should all agree that serious organised crime is so sophisticated in this country that we cannot afford to let borders prevent us from tackling it. I mean not only UK borders, but European borders and trans-national borders.

We must be sensible when we decide what we expect of our agencies. We should be talking about how best we can tackle the horrific extent of human trafficking, money laundering, child slavery and paedophilia rings. We need, in order to tackle those crimes, an organisation that has resources and which is backed by our commitment, but which does not need to resolve issues of borders. I do not for a second trivialise the need to sort out the important operational lines between England and Wales and Scotland. However, as politicians, we cannot afford to be frightened by that challenge. It is up to us. It is an alarming picture, and we are the ones who have to tackle it.

That is why I am pleased to support the amendment in Bill Butler's name, which allows us to focus on the serious issue in the motion that is before us. The amendment is the right way forward. I know that not all the issues will go away—it is nonsense to suggest that we will not continue to debate national security and our role in it. However, I record my support for the Executive's deleting from the Sewel motion the provisions that relate to ministerial powers over Crown land and land that is owned by the Queen. That will allow us to focus on those provisions, which are too wide. I would like more time to discuss them.

The Conservatives cannot have it both ways; they cannot say that there has been consensus across the parties—albeit among a minority of members—that we have not had enough time to debate the provisions that relate to the designated sites and then say, when the minister would delete those provisions from the Sewel motion, that it is "a shambles". They should make their minds up about what they want.

The process has not been satisfactory from the outset in terms of the time that has been available for debate. We need time to refine the provisions here; we were trying to have a genuine and mature debate about the matter, so I am pleased that at least we now have the time to do so. I hope that Parliament recognises that ministers have been attempting to secure in good faith what they thought was right, which is for Parliament to have a statutory say in designation of sites. Unlike Kenny MacAskill, I believe that that decision shows that we have ministers of substance.

It may be that we will return to the subject in the future. I know that we will, as the Home Secretary has his own powers over national security. I also understand that Charles Clarke, the current Home Secretary, has been a member of the Ramblers Association for 30 years. I am sure that he will be sensitive to issues in the land reform laws in Scotland. I will take no lessons from anybody here, having supported and taken through the land reform legislation. I do not want to diminish any one's, or any party's, role in that—we all agreed that it was probably the most far-reaching legislation that Europe has ever seen. No one is interested in cutting across that.

In conclusion, I say that ministers have made the right decision. There are issues of concern, and the Justice 2 Committee's report is excellent. In the short time that was available to the committee, it was given the reassurances that Parliament expected. SOCA agents will be able to operate in Scotland only with the agreement of Scottish ministers and under the direction of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency—an organisation that has shown its maturity and how formidable it is.

I support the amendment in Bill Butler's name.

I, too, support the amendment in Bill Butler's name and will speak to it. I pay tribute to the justice ministers, who have responded genuinely and pragmatically to concerns that were expressed by back benchers on both sides of the coalition. Those were genuine concerns about the creation of the new offence of royal trespass in Scotland through the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill at Westminster. That is what we should be debating today. The whole land reform issue is, in some ways, a side issue. It is the creation of the new offence that gives ministers powers to delegate. The genuine concern is whether we need that new offence in Scotland at all.

There are genuine concerns about whether it is necessary to create such an offence, as the Executive's supplementary memorandum, which was submitted to the Justice 2 Committee, makes clear. It states:

"Scots law is generally sufficient as regards the operational powers of the police to deal appropriately with intruders on sensitive sites."

ACPOS seemed to say that it is also satisfied that its current powers are sufficient to protect royal residences from intruders. Given the uncertainty about that matter, the introduction of a new offence and the lack of time that is provided by the Sewel convention, the proper response that ministers have accepted is to delay the clause at Westminster, bring it back to the Scottish Parliament and give the Justice 2 Committee time to take more evidence from interested organisations on whether there is a genuine need to legislate in Scotland and to strengthen police powers.

That is the genuine debate, rather than some of the opportunistic concerns that have been expressed by the Tories and the SNP today. I am sure that no member wants our Scottish royal residences to have less protection than those in England. However, that can be addressed only through a thorough review of current police powers followed by action taken by Parliament to address any shortfall, with the benefit of detailed and full knowledge of exactly where weaknesses lie.

I also point out that the Home Secretary will take the power to create the offence of trespass on designated sites throughout the United Kingdom on grounds of national security. That will happen regardless of whether the Scottish clause is in or out. That is the reality of being part of the United Kingdom; it is time the SNP accepted that.

The problems that members have had with this particular Sewel motion highlight the urgency for the Procedures Committee to complete its review of the timing as regards Sewel motions; rather than whether we need them at all. The Liberal Democrats are not opposed to the use of Sewel motions, but it must be clear to all members that the process must be improved, especially its timing. I hope that the Procedures Committee will be in a position to make constructive suggestions within the next few months.

We will support the amendment and the amended motion.

This is a complex matter. Perhaps it is not surprising that the debate has generated more heat than light, but to be frank we are left with a shambles that has resulted in a curtailed debate, and slightly fraught tempers that have resulted in ill thought out and bad legislation that might prove to be unworkable.

Lest I be seen to offer succour to the SNP, I make it clear that we are not prepared to play ducks and drakes with the devolution settlement. As Annabel Goldie said, Sewel motions are a perfectly appropriate way of dealing with things; that is not the issue. However, we have to consider how the matter has been dealt with, so I ask all members to consider in all seriousness whether what happened in yesterday's Justice 2 Committee meeting is an acceptable way for any Parliament to scrutinise and deal with legislation that will have such far-reaching consequences.

It is unfortunate that—[Interruption.] I wonder whether it would have been more disrespectful to the committee not to have given information as soon as it was available and to allow the committee—[Interruption.]

I am quite happy to acknowledge that the minister was put in a difficult position and that she had to handle the issue as she found it, as indeed did the Minister for Parliamentary Business. However, it is totally unacceptable that legislation is being railroaded through Parliament in a deck-clearing exercise prior to the next general election. That is totally and utterly unacceptable.

What happened yesterday that caused the great change of mind? Well, Mr Rumbles was rumbling and other Liberals, whose eyes were completely off the ball, made appropriate representations suggesting that the Executive could lose a vote. I say to George Lyon and the other Liberals that they have not grasped the main issue—the trespass issue is entirely peripheral to the main arguments.

I do not have enough time. Bearing in mind the history of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, is not it the most incredible irony that I am standing here in an effort to defend one of the principles of that act?

I am rather disappointed that Dennis Canavan—whose intentions are perfectly honourable and clear—does not seem to understand that the net effect of the amendment with which he is disposed to agree will, in fact, be that the powers that he is afraid of will go to the Home Secretary down south without there being any input from Scottish Executive ministers. The Liberals have got things wrong in that respect.

The Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson, was correct to highlight a number of general justice issues that require attention, but she and Margaret Curran were completely wrong to highlight difficulties with the security industry in Scotland, highly problematic as that matter is. The matter has been debated in Parliament and there was total consensus that something must be done. Why on earth the Executive did not legislate by Sewel motion in 2001 when it had the opportunity to do so renders all its arguments completely void in that respect.

Finally, I return to last week, when the First Minister stated:

"The reality is that the proposals that will be put before the Scottish Parliament next week will extend the powers of the Parliament and ensure that the Parliament remains in control of the situation. Ultimately, the proposals will ensure that decisions are not made by the UK Parliament in London."—[Official Report, 27 January 2005; c 13988.]

The net effect of that statement is Bill Butler's amendment. That is shocking.

The passage of this Sewel motion through Parliament has been nothing more than an attempt by the Executive to rush through a series of contentious measures that should have been given full scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament—nowhere else but here. Instead, a timetable was put in place that made it impossible for the Justice 2 Committee to examine the issues properly.

I will deal first with trespass, which has certainly attracted much attention. The Deputy Minister for Justice appeared before the Justice 2 Committee to refute strongly the suggestion that what was being proposed was trespass. In fact, he said:

"We have been very careful to ensure that that word is not included."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 25 January 2005; c 1369.]

Oh, what a tangled web they weave when first they practise to deceive. Unfortunately for the Deputy Minister for Justice, the cat was already out of the bag. The Minister for Justice had already sent a supplementary Sewel memorandum to the committee, stating that the policy intention was

"To create a new offence of trespass".

Will the member take an intervention?

No—I have no time.

Despite that, the Deputy Minister for Justice carried on with his assertion that it was not trespass, as the bill defined the offence as someone's being on a site without legal authority. I must tell the minister that his definition of an act that he said was not trespass is almost word for word the "Chambers Dictionary" definition of "trespass".

Will Stewart Maxwell tell us where Alex Salmond—the leader over the sea—was on 18 January when the amendment was moved in the House of Commons? As usual, he failed to represent Scotland and was nowhere to be seen.

It is clear that I was mistaken in thinking that a Liberal Democrat would have a reasonable point to make.

Labour members of the committee valiantly attempted to come to the Deputy Minister for Justice's aid by supporting his assertion that an offence of trespass would not be created and Bill Butler did so again today. That is nothing more than "1984"-speak. No doubt they will argue that not only is trespass not trespass, but that

"War is peace … Freedom is slavery"

and "Ignorance is strength."

Yesterday, the Minister for Justice claimed that she was withdrawing the Executive's trespass proposals because she had listened to the concerns that were expressed. If she had really been listening, she would have heard the concerns that were expressed not only about trespass, but about large sections of the bill. The bill is not just about the mess that the Executive has made of the bill's attempt to introduce in Scotland a law of trespass—it has many more very serious flaws. Deep misgivings have been expressed by a number of police organisations. For example, there is the issue of political interference with the police. Wide-ranging concern about that has been expressed by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, the Scottish Police Federation and the Scottish police authority conveners forum. In its evidence to the committee, the forum stated:

"Such political direction is alien to the accepted practice of political disengagement from operational policing."

Why is the minister not listening to those concerns?

The setting up of SOCA has also raised concerns among police representatives such as ACPOS, the Scottish police authority conveners forum and the SPF.

Will the member give way?

I will not.

In its submission, the SPF states that it has significant concerns about the SOCA proposals. It goes on to say that SOCA

"threatens the present coordinated and integrated approach".

However, the minister still refuses to listen.

This Sewel motion is not worthy of our support, because the bill is not worthy of our support. It is flawed, and police representatives have expressed many concerns about it. We should listen to what they have to say. If the Liberals are really concerned about this issue, they will not support the Sewel motion and will not be bought off by the U-turn on trespass. It is a simple choice for them: they can either join all the other parties, which are united in their opposition to the motion, and the various police organisations that have expressed concern and even dismay at the proposals, or they can join the Labour Party in voting in favour of political interference with the police and of non-police officers being given the power of constables.

I wish to quote from a letter from the Scottish police authority conveners forum to the Justice 2 Committee, which sums up exactly the point that I am making. It states:

"The Conveners came to the view that the major constitutional issues raised in the Bill make it inappropriate that the Sewel convention is used for this legislation."

They are not known to be nasty narrow nationalists of the sort to which Labour and Liberal Democrat members continually refer. The forum is not a nationalist organisation, but a police representative body. It says that it is inappropriate to use the Sewel convention for this legislation. This Sewel motion is opposed by most of the parties in Parliament and by organisations that represent the police. It is time to put an end to motions that will result in bad and inappropriate law being foisted on Scotland. This is about doing the right thing for Scotland and Scots law, not about avoiding embarrassment for the Labour Party. I urge all members to vote no this evening.

Members who have been paying attention will know that we are having some problems with the microphones. I suspend the meeting until we have rebooted the system. The minister can sit down.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

I apologise to members for the suspension. The system seems to be up and running again. I must ask members, though, to remove their cards and reinsert them. That being done, we will have the winding-up speech from Hugh Henry. You have six minutes.

I hope that it is worth waiting for, Presiding Officer.

It is extremely regrettable that, during the debate, neither of the two main parties bothered to address the issue of crime. That is clearly their stated preference.

The debate has done Parliament a great service in that it has dispelled a myth once and for all: it is clear from his speech that Kenny MacAskill does have a sense of humour. However, the joke as far as he is concerned will be perpetrated upon the people of Scotland, who will have to take the consequences of that irresponsible action. In his speech, apart from trying to kid us all on, Mr MacAskill mentioned a number of things and failed to explain matters in detail. He even tried to distort what the Minister for Justice said about the direction of the Scottish police forces. He quoted her as having said:

"Only Scottish ministers would be able to exercise this power".

He failed to go on to read the rest of the sentence, in which the minister said that that would happen only rarely and only in "extremely specific circumstances" if at all, which will be consistent with the powers that ministers have under the current legislation from 1967. There is no difference.

As far as Annabel Goldie is concerned, I think that it was very unkind of certain people to refer to her as a gangster's moll—Annabel has much more to contribute than that. She asked why the Sewel convention was not questioned when it was going through the UK Parliament. The UK consulted on that in 1999 as this Parliament was being established. In 2001, it legislated. At that point, we thought it best to consult on whether people wanted Scottish legislation and Scottish regulations and the outcome of the consultation was that there was a preference for regulating on a UK basis. We would have been criticised for doing so then without consultation, but we are being criticised now for responding to the outcome of consultation. In a sense, we cannot win.

Jeremy Purvis asked some legitimate questions about consultation. I assure him that we have started work on discussions between the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency and the serious organised crime agency to establish robust arrangements. We will come back with more detail on that.

I confess that I was extremely disappointed with Stewart Stevenson's speech. He is usually well prepared and accurate, but his whole contribution today was completely and utterly wrong. For example, clause 2(2) makes it absolutely clear that clause 2(3) does not apply to Scotland, so the bill makes it clear that the Serious Fraud Office will not cover Scotland.

Will the minister give way?

No.

I shall go on to sum up where we are with the motion that is before us today. I have to say that those who have been tempted to join the unholy alliance of Tories and SNP members ought to think twice. Where are we with the motion? The Tories and the SNP are voting against new powers to investigate serious organised crime. They are against new powers to impose financial reporting orders on people who are convicted of serious financial crime. The Tories and the SNP are voting against ratifying the United Nations conventions against transnational organised crime and against corruption, and they are also voting against the European Union framework directive on asset freezing. When it comes to criminal records, the Tories and the SNP will not allow Disclosure Scotland access to databases elsewhere in the United Kingdom, so the Tories and the SNP are abandoning Scotland's children.

When it comes to witness protection, the Tories and the SNP shamefully want Scots witnesses to have access to greater protection when they are moved to England and Wales, but they want to deny English or Welsh witnesses the same protection in Scotland. Shame! When it comes to the private security industry—when it comes to a choice between crooks and communities—the Tories and the SNP have yet again gone against our communities.

So when it comes to the vote, let the record of shame show that when they were asked to vote for safer communities, SNP members have yet again allowed their constitutional obsession to take precedence over protecting decent people in decent communities, and the Tories have once again shown that, just as with the legislation on antisocial behaviour, they are not prepared to take a stand against those who inflict misery on our communities.