Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Cancellation of Authorisations) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/207)<br />Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juveniles) (Scotland) Order 2002<br />(SSI 2002/206)
Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Source Records) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/205)
Under item 3, we have three negative instruments to consider. Members have a note from the Executive and papers J2/02/21/19, J2/02/21/20 and J2/02/21/21. Are members happy to simply note the content of the instruments?
The only consultation that the Executive appears to have undertaken with regard to the three parts of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 has been with the police. I am slightly surprised that the Executive has not taken some account of the civil liberties issues that could be associated with the act. However, I acknowledge that the Executive might feel that there was sufficient input on those issues during consideration of the bill. Nonetheless, I am perfectly content to support the Executive.
It is a fair comment that, although the instruments are non-controversial, they relate to the act that the committee dealt with and there might be civil liberties issues. Would the committee like to note Stewart Stevenson's comments?
We should note Stewart Stevenson's comments. The instruments are not controversial, but the Executive, in considering them, should have consulted more bodies—not necessarily extensively—than just the police, given that we are talking about covert surveillance and that we highlighted that when we considered the bill at stages 1 and 2.
If there is no dissent from that view, I propose to use Stewart Stevenson's statement as a comment to make to the Executive on its consultation.
The only thing that I would underline is that the act was dealt with before I was a member of the committee, but I presume that advice on the human rights aspects was taken at the time.
The committee took extensive evidence. We consulted organisations that addressed the civil rights and human rights issues at length.
I would have thought that the evidence that was taken then was sufficient safeguard, but I take no great issue with what Stewart Stevenson said.
Do members agree to note the contents of the instruments and Stewart Stevenson's comments, and that we have nothing else to say?
Previous
Item in Private