Police and Justice Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4317, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on the Police and Justice Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.
I thank members of the Justice 2 Committee for their consideration of the legislative consent motion in respect of the bill, which is one of the first legislative consent motions since the review of the Sewel convention last year, and for their report to the Parliament. The motion illustrates that the convention now has an established place in our parliamentary process.
Policing is a devolved matter, and the Scottish Executive has a distinct agenda for policing in Scotland that is very different from that of the Home Office for England and Wales. Later this month, we will debate stage 3 of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which has received widespread support from all the major parties in the Parliament. Today we are considering the Home Office's Police and Justice Bill, most of the provisions of which relate only to England and Wales. The legislative consent memorandum is concerned with very few provisions, in relation to which there is a clear, strong case for agreeing that the UK legislation should extend to devolved matters or alter the executive functions of Scottish ministers. I will outline briefly the four pertinent elements of the memorandum.
First, the bill will merge the Police Information Technology Organisation and the Central Police Training and Development Authority into a new England and Wales organisation to be known as the national policing improvement agency. Like its predecessors, the new organisation will provide some services, such as senior staff training, specialist policing support and work on some information technology developments, on a UK basis. The LCM will allow Scottish police organisations to continue to benefit from those services. Crucially, the bill provides safeguards that will require the NPIA to consult the Scottish police on its activities in Scotland. Any changes to the functions or structures of the agency that relate to devolved matters will be made by Scottish ministers, subject to the consent of the UK Government, under the scrutiny of the Parliament.
Secondly, the LCM will allow the new, merged inspectorate of justice, community safety and custody services to carry on the work of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in the inspection of cross-border bodies such as the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and the British Transport Police.
Thirdly, the bill makes improvements to the legislation on computer crime that are necessary to comply with the European Union framework decision on attacks against systems. The LCM will allow those benefits to extend to Scotland, recognising the advantages of UK-wide legislation to combat an international problem.
Fourthly, the bill makes a number of technical improvements to the Extradition Act 2003. Although that is a reserved matter, under the established convention the amendments that alter the competence of the Scottish ministers require the consent of the Parliament.
It is entirely appropriate that all of the measures that I have outlined should be extended to Scotland. A strong case has been made for doing so. I commend the legislative consent motion to the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the UK Parliament should consider those provisions of the Police and Justice Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 25 January 2006, which will legislate in devolved areas in respect of the abolition of the Police Information Technology Organisation and the establishment of the National Policing Improvement Agency and the Justice, Community Safety and Custody Inspectorate, and computer misuse, and which will alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers on extradition matters, as laid out in LCM(S2) 4.1.
On behalf of the Justice 2 Committee, I express thanks to the committee clerks and to those who gave evidence to the committee during its consideration of the LCM. I also thank the deputy minister and his superior for their co-operation in supplying information as and when the committee requested it.
In moving the amendment that I have lodged on behalf of the Justice 2 Committee, which was agreed unanimously, my aim is not to oppose the Executive proposal but to seek assistance from the minister in conveying to Her Majesty's Government the committee's concerns. We seek not to oppose the LCM, but to add to it. Other committee members and I will seek to influence the deputy minister to accept the amendment. No doubt he will wait until the end of the debate before telling us whether he intends to do so.
I refer members to paragraph 8 on page 2 of the committee's report. The committee still requires an assurance from the Executive that lines of communication between the committee and ministers will be improved, because neither members nor committee clerks were given any prior notice of the memorandum. I know that that is a teething problem, but I ask the minister to respond to the point, as the committee requested.
As the minister said, the Westminster bill will change several of the organisations that used to supply a UK service. We heard in evidence of continuing concern that where a service would apply to Scotland there should be adequate Scottish representation, an opportunity for the Scottish authorities to have an input and timeous notice of any changes.
It is interesting to note in paragraph 13 of our report that the deputy minister addressed the clearly expressed concerns of ACPOS. ACPOS has now accepted the logic of the position that has been taken, albeit reluctantly. The committee is still concerned about the mechanism for any changes to policing and justice in Scotland, so perhaps the deputy minister will return to that subject.
The deputy minister advised that agreement had been reached with the Home Office to include a requirement on the NPIA board management to provide that where a committee is set up to manage or develop a specific work stream that will or might have an impact on Scotland, the committee will have an appropriate Scottish representative.
We have a devolved Government and justice and policing are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The committee seeks adequate recognition of that, albeit that the bill addresses an overall UK concern. We seek a guarantee of equitable treatment of Scottish residents. The committee has no argument with the UK Government, but because certain services are devolved, it is important that our concerns are raised and that any Westminster legislation that applies to Scotland is crystal clear.
Our amendment asks the Minister for Justice to take action. We want our points to be made clear, because it came across in evidence that the agreement between the UK and the United States Governments is currently a little one-sided. The UK Government has signed up fully to the extradition agreement, whereas the US Government has not. We feel that the position must be clarified and resolved.
I understand that the shadow minister for police reform, Nick Herbert, is to lodge amendments as the bill goes through Westminster to restrict extradition to the US to terrorism cases until such time as the United States provides full reciprocity and creates new safeguards. That reflects the committee's sentiment.
On behalf of my political grouping, I confirm that we support the LCM. We also support the committee amendment. I ask the minister to accept the committee amendment as a positive and constructive measure that does not in any sense take away from the principles of the bill.
I move amendment S2M-4317.1, to insert at end:
"but, in doing so, expresses serious concerns over the ambiguity of the status of an extradition request in respect of a person domiciled in Scotland against whom the Lord Advocate has decided not to proceed; notes that the United States of America has not, over a period of some three years, ratified the bilateral extradition treaty with the United Kingdom, and accordingly, in the interest of equality between nations and recognising the distinctive nature of the Scottish legal system and the need to protect the civil liberties and human rights of those living in Scotland, urges the Minister for Justice to make representations to the UK Government based upon these concerns."
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this debate in support of the legislative consent motion on the UK Police and Justice Bill and the Justice 2 Committee's amendment, the wording of which the committee agreed unanimously.
As the minister outlined far more clearly than I am about to do, the main provision that will impact on Scotland is the creation of the national policing improvement agency, which will have responsibility for providing services such as IT systems and training in England and Wales and which will continue to provide the Airwave system.
We need to ensure that Scottish interests are adequately considered, and the committee welcomed the deputy minister's assurance that the agency will consult ACPOS before any action or decision is taken that might affect policing in Scotland. With that assurance, neither I nor the committee will have any difficulty in supporting the minister's legislative consent motion.
In the rest of my remarks, I will concentrate on the committee's amendment. The convener was right to say that we do not seek to replace text with which we entirely agree, but wish merely to add our concerns about elements of the Extradition Act 2003. For the benefit of members who might not have followed the matter closely, the Police and Justice Bill contains clauses that will amend the 2003 act.
There are two concerns that exercise the committee. First, we believe that the extradition treaty is a one-way treaty: some three years on, it has not been ratified by the United States. As a consequence, if the US wishes to extradite anyone from the UK, only information—not evidence—is required. Those being threatened with extradition will have no evidential hearing, no ability to rebut any information that is provided and no voice in the process. However, if the UK applies for the extradition of someone in the US, there will be an evidential hearing at which a defendant can challenge and rebut evidence. Why should the arrangements be different over here? It seems inherently unfair that different tests should apply and that UK nationals should be somehow disadvantaged in the process. At the very least, we should expect principles of equality between nations to be paramount in all that we do.
Secondly, the committee is unclear about the status of an extradition request for someone living in Scotland against whom the Lord Advocate has decided not to proceed. The point merits a little explanation, particularly for non-lawyers such as me. The Lord Advocate has ultimate discretion over whether a person accused of criminal conduct over which Scottish courts have jurisdiction is prosecuted in Scotland. We received welcome and clear confirmation of that point from the Minister for Justice. However, problems arise if the Lord Advocate decides not to prosecute a particular person or decides that there is insufficient evidence to take the case any further. That person, who has deliberately not been prosecuted in the Scottish courts, can be extradited to the US without—let me remind the chamber—an evidential hearing, without being able to rebut information that has been presented, and without any voice in the process.
I understand that precedent governs extradition within the European Union. Under the European arrest warrants scheme, which was introduced in June 2002, a member state can refuse extradition and try the defendant locally. The UK might want to consider whether it should apply such a provision to all extraditions.
It is not for us to interfere in Westminster's deliberations. However, given the distinctive nature of our justice system, it is legitimate for us to seek to protect the interests of people in Scotland. On that basis, I would be very grateful if the Minister for Justice would raise our concerns with her UK counterpart.
I urge all members to support the legislative consent motion and the Justice 2 Committee's amendment.
As the minister, Mr Davidson and Ms Baillie have made clear, the bill's main impact on Parliament's devolved responsibilities is its replacement of the Police Information Technology Organisation and the Central Police Training and Development Authority with the NPIA. The committee expressed a number of concerns about the change, particularly the fact that Scottish police will not be members of the new organisation's board. Indeed, ACPOS was very concerned about the proposal and made representations to the committee on a number of points. In our report, we point out:
"ACPOS was concerned that the onus will be on Scotland to identify matters upon which it would seek to be consulted by the NPIA and that this may not be sufficient to protect Scotland's interests."
I understand that the minister has assured the committee that if any matters impact on Scotland a separate subcommittee—if that is the correct term—will be established, which will contain representation from the Scottish police. If so, I welcome that move to protect Scottish interests.
As certain reserved matters in the bill would or could impact heavily on Scottish citizens, the committee also took some time to discuss them. It can come as no surprise that much of the interest in this Sewel motion relates to the provisions in the Police and Justice Bill that cover reserved matters. I certainly make no apology for using my time to talk about the extradition issues that the bill raises.
Our responsibility in this Parliament is to stand up for the Scottish interest and for Scottish citizens, irrespective of the niceties of the current constitutional arrangement. As a result, the Scottish National Party will support the amendment moved by David Davidson on behalf of the Justice 2 Committee. In fact, the Parliament should note that a committee made up of members from five different political parties was unanimous in its support for the amendment and its serious concerns about certain aspects of the Westminster bill.
No Scottish citizen should be extradited to the US while the US fails to sign its half of the treaty. For that matter, Scottish citizens should not be extradited to anywhere else that fails to sign such treaties. We should not support a one-sided treaty. When the treaty was being debated, it was said that it was needed as part of the war on terror, but the US is now using it to extradite people who have nothing to do with the war on terror. In fact, the US is using the treaty to try to extradite people who have been accused of what is commonly referred to as white-collar crime; the Internal Revenue Service has been heavily involved in that process. We are obliged by the terms of the Extradition Act 2003 to send people to the US—without, as Jackie Baillie clearly pointed out, proper hearings or prima facie evidence of their guilt or involvement—but America is under no reciprocal obligation. That cannot be right. In fact, people can be extradited to the US when they are accused of crimes that were committed wholly or mainly in this country.
The committee was concerned about the possibility of situations arising in which Scottish citizens could be extradited on the basis of a charge that the Lord Advocate has already marked "no proceedings" here in Scotland. Jackie Baillie referred to that in some detail. However, I noted that, during questions to the ministers with responsibility for justice this afternoon, the Lord Advocate confirmed that that was indeed possible. He said that, even though he had marked a case "no proceedings" and had given the individual concerned a letter stating that no further proceedings would ever be taken against them in connection with the charge in question, it would be open to Governments in other countries to continue to move against that citizen and to have him or her extradited. That is a matter of grave concern.
However, I do not blame the USA for the situation, because what is happening is not its fault. The failure, unfortunately, lies with the UK Government, because it was the UK Government that agreed to send citizens of this country to the US before the US signed the treaty. It is the fault of the UK Government in London that people can be extradited from the UK to the US when the US refuses to reciprocate.
There are a number of options, some of which have been suggested in debates at Westminster. Perhaps we could do the same as happens in Ireland at the moment, by incorporating article 7 of the European convention on extradition, which allows a country to refuse extradition if the offence is deemed to have been committed in whole or in part on its territory. A small, simple, one-line amendment to the Police and Justice Bill that is currently being considered at Westminster would allow that to happen, and I believe that certain parties at Westminster are considering tabling such an amendment.
What can the Scottish Parliament do about it? Unfortunately, we can do virtually nothing except ask the UK Government to take note of our concerns. I know that, when they are caught in such a bind, members of other parties sometimes wring their hands and try to ensure that the UK Government does something, but the reality is that this Parliament is completely impotent on reserved matters. The only viable and logical option to such problems is independence. If Scotland were a normal, independent country with a proper Parliament that had full powers, we could—and I believe that we would—act in defence of our citizens. In fact, we would never have allowed such a situation to have arisen in the first place. I support the amendment, but it is a poor substitute for having the ability to act for ourselves.
As a member of the Justice 2 Committee, I support the amendment in the name of the convener, David Davidson. As members can see, it is a two-part amendment and it expresses two specific concerns. First, it expresses concern that persons domiciled in Scotland who face no charges here can be sent to the United States of America to face prosecution when not even a prima facie case has been presented against them to justify that extradition, and that they can face charges other than those on the extradition statement when they arrive there. Secondly, the amendment expresses concern that the United States has still not ratified the treaty that Britain ratified three years ago, as other members have said.
I shall concentrate my remarks on the first of the two parts to the amendment, but I would like to comment briefly on the treaty ratification. I understand that that treaty was signed in March 2003 by the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, under powers known as orders in council. Those powers are conferred on the Home Secretary as a privy counsellor, in the name of the Queen and under royal prerogative, whereby ministers are instructed to act on behalf of the monarch. Perhaps members who have argued that the Queen is simply a figurehead—stuck above the democratic mantelpiece, so to speak, as some kind of benign ornament—would care to stop and reflect on such orders, which are exercised without recourse to Parliament and are thoroughly undemocratic. Indeed, Westminster and the entire democratic process can be completely bypassed by a power vested in the Queen. We shall come back to that another day, I suspect.
In passing, I will say that Mr Blunkett did a spectacularly bad job post-9/11 in negotiating a treaty that gave the Americans a legal blank cheque to have Britons extradited, whereas our Government must continue to prove probable cause—which, in my view, is right—when it wishes to bring someone from the States over here. No other European country has such a treaty with America. I suppose that it is a product of what is called the special relationship. No wonder no other country is fighting for it.
The Scottish Socialist Party will support amendment S2M-4317.1 because we think that the extradition treaty has immense implications for the criminal justice system. Under the treaty, someone who is domiciled in Scotland can find themselves being extradited to the United States, even though there are no charges against them in this country and in spite of the fact that the treaty says that extraditable offences must be punishable in both countries. It seems that the burden of proof on the Lord Advocate when he decides whether to prosecute is far higher than the one on the US Government when it wishes to take someone from this country—all that it needs is a mere statement of the facts of the case. Moreover, someone who has been extradited because they are suspected of a particular offence can then face trial on a completely different charge.
The treaty states that a person will be extradited only when a clear undertaking has been given that the death penalty will not be exercised against them. However, that is not guaranteed. In 1999, a German national was executed in the state of Arizona after a United States court found that rulings by the International Court of Justice, human rights laws and extradition treaties were subordinate to US federal laws.
Lest anyone think that we are considering an abstract issue that is of importance only to constitutional lawyers, I will cite the case of an Algerian pilot—Lofti Raissi—who was based in Britain and whom the US tried to have extradited in 2002 for allegedly training the 9/11 hijackers. He was held in Belmarsh prison in south London for five months, during which time he spent 23 hours a day in his cell. The case against him, which was based on a video and other so-called evidence, fell apart when it was shown that the person with whom he appeared in the video was his cousin, not one of the hijackers. If Lofti Raissi had been subject to the extradition treaty, he would now be in Guantanamo bay.
There are Labour MPs at Westminster who argue that the Scottish Parliament has no power over such matters and that they are the concern of the UK Parliament alone, but what on earth have they done to highlight what is an outrageous state of affairs? In 2003, Mr Blunkett ignored the Scottish Parliament's rights when he signed the treaty without consulting the Lord Advocate. I humbly suggest that the Justice 2 Committee's amendment is exceedingly modest in the requests that it makes of the minister and the Home Office; it would have been entitled to be far more pointed.
So far, a dozen people have been extradited under powers in a treaty that was justified as being a necessary part of the so-called war on terror. In two cases, extradition related to alleged drug offences; in six cases, it related to alleged fraud charges; in one case, it related to a murder allegation; in two cases, it related to allegations of rape; and in one case, it related to an allegation of grievous bodily harm. It is important to stress that we are talking about allegations, given that the grounds on which prosecutions can be pursued are now so flimsy. The war on terror is being used as an excuse to countermand due process of law.
My fellow committee members and I have expressed our unity in support of amendment S2M-4317.1. It is the privilege of any member of the Parliament to hold their own beliefs and it is right that they should express them. The amendment in my name is a testament to the committee's commitment to work together in the interests of the rights of people in Scotland and to the willingness of its members to bury their constitutional differences to unite on what Colin Fox referred to as a "modest" proposal.
As the minister has said, the extradition process is fairly new. Things can only get better. As I said earlier, I believe that Scottish Executive ministers have done their best to be helpful. However, given the heavy work schedule that the Parliamentary Bureau has allocated to the committee, it would be helpful to be given as much notice as possible of any new proposals, so that our clerking team can ensure that we have as much time as we need to consult widely on them. That approach should apply to all the Parliament's committees.
Yesterday, I was asked by the BBC whether an approach had been made to the Justice 2 Committee about any individual case and I put it down for the record that no such approach had been made. All that the committee did was consider the legislative consent memorandum that was put before us, take evidence on it and report back to the Parliament. I hope that Parliament will accept the amendment. I would like to think that the minister will acknowledge the reasons for what the committee has done and that there is nothing malicious in its intentions. As Jackie Baillie rightly said, we are not trying to change any text.
It is interesting that the Westminster bill now recognises that the Secretary of State for Scotland should not be involved in the process; instead, powers will be given to the Scottish ministers. I find it a little odd that it has taken Westminster seven years to realise that devolution exists, particularly with regard to justice matters. As others have mentioned, we have our own legal system, which must be recognised. If, based on Scots law, the Lord Advocate is the ultimate prosecutor in Scotland, those who administer UK-wide regulation and, indeed, international legislation and treaties must understand how the Scottish legal system works. On behalf of the committee, I ask the minister again, along with his colleagues in his parliamentary group, to accept the amendment and the best intentions that have been offered by the committee.
This is an important debate, even though it is a short one. The UK bill that we have been discussing impacts on devolved areas. As the Justice 2 Committee identified, there are aspects of the UK bill that are in some respects technical amendments to extradition procedures that may have a considerable impact on Scotland's justice system and procedures. Even if that were not the case, the committee—particularly Jackie Baillie—has done Parliament a service by highlighting a concern in relation to which further consideration would be valid. I will return to that in a moment.
The committee also expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of notification of this LCM. That raises an important point of procedure. Although the committee acknowledged that the Parliament's new system is an improvement, there is potential for a more proactive relationship between the Executive and the Westminster Government. Perhaps that could be considered during what the committee described as the "bedding in" period of the new procedures.
We know at the beginning of each parliamentary year, from our legislative programme debate and from the Queen's speech at Westminster, what the likely legislative programme of the two Parliaments will be, and we can begin to plan how forthcoming legislation will impact on each area. The Parliament is trying to improve comparable systems for European legislation—the Scottish Parliament information centre is doing excellent work in that regard. There is potential for the same to apply to Westminster legislation that will affect Scotland. Not only at the Executive level but at the parliamentary level, there should be much more notice of such legislation.
On the substance of the motion, I am satisfied that there has been sufficient scrutiny of the LCM. The Police Information Technology Organisation and the Central Police Training and Development Authority will be abolished and the national policing improvement agency will be established. That will be a wholly English and Welsh body, but it was clear that changes that would have an impact on Scotland would be made only with the approval of Scottish ministers. That is reassuring.
Indeed, there is an additional safeguard that the Home Secretary would consult Scottish ministers in giving any strategic direction to the new agency, and there is a commitment that NPIA board decisions that could impact on Scotland would be made only after prior consultation with ACPOS and the proposed new Scottish police services authority.
I support the committee's amendment. Although congressional hearings on ratification have started, the bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and the US has not been ratified by the US Congress. However, under part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, the Home Secretary designated several countries—including the US—in relation to which simple provision of sufficient information would be required. Why on earth the UK Government would set a different standard for those domiciled in this country than is set anywhere else is beyond me. However, this is not an issue of constitutional nicety. Even if there was an independent Scotland, there would presumably be extradition treaties.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
I am very sorry; I am in my final minute.
In essence, the concern, which we have heard before, is about cases that the Lord Advocate decides not to prosecute. We have high thresholds, such as the need for corroboration, but the thresholds might not be as high in the country that is seeking to extradite. As my colleague Euan Robson found out earlier when he asked the Lord Advocate a question at question time, the Lord Advocate cannot bind any prosecutor, whether in this country—in England and Wales—or abroad, and prevent them from requesting extradition where there has been a decision in Scotland that there will be no proceedings. The issue is delicate. We want to have proper working procedures, given that there is so much cross-border crime, whether technological crime, terrorism or fraud.
We must be very concerned to ensure that we do not get a prosecution system in Scotland in which there is, effectively, double jeopardy, which is specifically prevented in relation to trials. Although the Executive will make representations to the UK Government, I hope that it will consider the very difficult situation that could arise in its own jurisdiction.
Like the convener of the committee, I welcome the minister's assurances. My colleague Stewart Maxwell made it quite clear that our criticism is not so much of the Executive as it is of the British Government. Blame lies not so much with the beleaguered office of the Home Secretary as with the supine attitude of the Foreign Secretary—if not the Prime Minister—which has allowed this matter to reach the situation that we face today.
It is quite clear that the principal duty of any state is to look after the safety and security of its citizens. That applies to imposing rules and rights for law and order. It applies equally to how citizens are treated when they are abroad or if another nation seeks to treat them unfairly and against the interests of their society. That is clearly something that the UK and Scotland accept; it is narrated on peoples' passports, whether they be maroon or blue. It is the duty of the state not simply to look after law and order but to protect its citizens from any abuse abroad.
Of course, as a society and as a state, we have to ensure that we do not allow ourselves to harbour refugees who are not fleeing maltreatment elsewhere, but who are trying to escape crimes that they have committed or to perpetrate crime here. That is accepted, and it is why we have extradition treaties and reciprocity. It might surprise Jeremy Purvis to know it, but of course there would be extradition treaties and reciprocity in an independent Scotland. The Scottish legal system has signed up to it, and we view it as part of the ethos and core of our society.
What we disagree with is the supine attitude of the United Kingdom Government. That attitude has not been replicated by the Government of Ireland or the Governments of other countries, because they have sought some reciprocity.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have time.
As Stewart Maxwell and Colin Fox said, we are dealing with an issue that has been driven by the USA's so-called war on terror. We know that, as in Iraq, we face a situation where non-combatants get the flak. Stewart Maxwell pointed out that it is not simply those who are involved in the war on terror, but those who are accused of white-collar crime or any other activity that the United States of America perceives as a crime—it might not be perceived as a crime in our country—who are affected. Citizens of Scotland could be extradited to the United States when we do not believe they have done anything wrong. We would be failing in our duty and our Government would be neglecting the interests of our citizens if we allowed that to happen. The tragedy is that it has happened under Jack Straw, with Tony Blair's connivance. We should not be going along with it: we have a duty to look after the rights of our citizens.
When our citizens commit a crime elsewhere, we have a duty to return them so that they face punishment, but we should not hand over our people simply because the Government of the United States of America thinks something might have happened and it suits its agenda, whether political or military, to have them handed over.
We cannot support the motion, unless it is amended; we support the amendment. We welcome the minister's assurances and are grateful for his efforts. The blame lies with Westminster. If the motion is not amended, it is entirely unacceptable.
David Davidson, on behalf of the Justice 2 Committee, raised specific concerns about the legislative consent motion, which others have echoed. As far as having improved lines of communication is concerned, I accept that problems were caused for the committee. We are keen to ensure that that does not happen in future. There has been a learning process and the new system's administrative arrangements have had to bed in. We will consider how we can avoid problems in future, if possible.
David Davidson and other members raised the issue of representation on committees. Assurances have been given that any concerns in Scotland will be addressed, that ACPOS will be specifically engaged and that the Scottish police services authority will be consulted. There is a requirement for the UK Government to obtain the consent of the Scottish ministers before any strategic priorities for the national policing improvement agency that will impact on Scottish police are set. The Home Office has assured us that there will be Scottish representation on any committees the agency sets up to consider specific work streams where there is a Scottish interest.
ACPOS is concerned that the onus will be on Scottish authorities to watch out for any possible impacts on Scottish policing and to take them up, after which the committee will be set up. Is that the case, or will the NPIA guarantee that it will bring to the attention of Scottish authorities anything that might impact on Scottish policing?
Even if there were such a guarantee, I would expect those responsible for policing in Scotland to be vigilant and scrutinise what is going on. I would not want to rely on others to determine what might or might not be a specific issue for Scotland. Although we are assured that matters will be addressed in the way that I outlined, I would expect representatives of Scottish police and our officials to keep a close eye on what is happening.
I will now consider the broader issue, which all members who have spoken have raised, of extradition.
I appreciate that the minister wants to move on to talk about the amendment to the motion, but I would like him to be a bit clearer about the LCM. Are there aspects of the UK bill that touch on devolved issues that could be dealt with through our own Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which would allow the committee that is dealing with it to give them proper consideration?
I do not think that Patrick Harvie was here for my opening speech, in which I addressed the specific issues that the LCM covers that it is appropriate for that mechanism to deal with.
I will leave aside the political comments Stewart Maxwell and Kenny MacAskill made, which were more a nod in the direction of the SNP's selection process than anything else. Other than those comments, members made well-constructed points, but the issues that they raised are all to do with the UK Government because they relate to extradition matters, which are not the responsibility of this Parliament.
Specific issues have been raised about double jeopardy. The issue was explained earlier by the Lord Advocate and the situation has been clearly outlined in relation to prosecution. However, when there is no prosecution in this country, the Scottish ministers, the Lord Advocate and anyone else are constrained by the Extradition Act 2003. We are bound to follow the law as set out under the Scotland Act 1998, which stipulates that extradition is a reserved matter. Ministers must comply with the UK's international obligations. That has been recognised by the courts in both Scotland and England. I acknowledge that all members who have spoken in the debate expressed concerns about the process at Westminster, but that is nothing to do with this Parliament, nor is it the responsibility of the Scottish ministers.
Although we would not necessarily express our views in the language or tone set out by the committee in its amendment and would not necessarily agree with how its views are expressed, I nevertheless think that we can accept the committee's request to make representations to the UK Government. The committee has previously asked the Minister for Justice to do that and she has written to the UK Government. I recognise that the committee is now asking for that to be done on behalf of the Parliament and we accept that we can do that. Given that there is such depth of feeling and that there is cross-party consensus on the issue, we are prepared to accept the spirit of the amendment, if not all the specific words. The minister will make representations to the UK Government based on those concerns. Therefore, we will accept the amendment.
On the core issue for which we are responsible, there is much in the motion to commend it to Parliament. All members have made points about their concerns very well. I have no doubt that a record of those comments will make its way to our colleagues in the UK Government. I repeat that the Minister for Justice will make representations to the UK Government that reflect the tone and content of the debate.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—