Serious Organised Crime
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1101, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on serious organised crime.
I welcome this opportunity to debate one of the major threats facing Scotland today: serious organised crime. Organised crime impacts on us all. For too long, too many people in Scotland have had to live with the cancer that is organised crime. Organised crime undermines legitimate businesses, distorts democracy and threatens the very fabric of our communities. That is intolerable and unacceptable in the 21st century. The Government is determined to root out that evil, to allow honest people and their businesses to prosper and to help our communities be all that they can be. It is what the people of Scotland want, what they deserve and what we must deliver.
It is important to consider what serious organised crime is. We live in an increasingly globalised world. Business is no longer constrained by geographical and political borders. Although that allows legitimate business to grow and flourish, crime is also increasingly globalised. It evolves and flourishes, taking advantage of freedom of movement, past conflicts in the Balkans and elsewhere, the opening up of the former Soviet republics, and cheaper international air travel. Criminal networks operate in many different countries with many spheres of interest, but all exist to make money at the expense of hard-working, law-abiding people. It is those networks that produce and supply the drugs that cause misery on Scotland's streets and cause harm in Scotland's communities.
Drug trafficking remains the single biggest threat to our communities because of the illegal proceeds that it secures and the devastating harm that it causes. The police and the Crown have had significant success in disrupting supply, in seizing assets earned from that illicit activity and in bringing serious criminals to justice. An example of that is the recovery of 170kg of heroin, with an estimated street value of £13.6 million, in the Blochairn area of Glasgow. In October 2007, a 44-year-old man was imprisoned for eight years at the High Court in connection with that operation.
However, organised crime is not about drugs alone. Its tentacles stretch to human trafficking, fraud and pornography and to using legitimate businesses as fronts for money laundering. It is evolving and searching for new ways to make money at the expense of others. That is and remains a serious threat that we must tackle and address.
There are other examples of successful operations against those threats. On 4 October 2007, following a four-year operation in which the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency supported Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, the Leonardo da Vinci painting "Madonna with the Yarnwinder", which is owned by the Duke of Buccleuch and valued at around £30 million, was recovered. Four males were arrested, have appeared in court in connection with the crime and await trial.
At the conclusion of an SCDEA intelligence-led operation into alleged counterfeit currency production and circulation, seven people were sentenced at the High Court in Edinburgh for a total of 22 years' imprisonment. When officers raided premises during the operation, £496,200-worth of counterfeit notes were being printed. Further investigations led to the recovery of €406,200 in counterfeit €50 notes. A further £672,880 in counterfeit Bank of Scotland notes with the same serial numbers was recovered from the banking system.
What are we doing to address the problem? We have to recognise that we must work in partnership to ensure that Scotland is not seen to provide a safe haven for organised crime. Co-operation between law enforcement agencies in Scotland, the United Kingdom and Europe—and more widely—is key. To provide a strategic focus for that work and to ensure co-ordinated and targeted action, we have established the serious organised crime task force. The task force brings together all the major agencies that are involved in tackling serious organised crime: the Crown Office, the police, the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Scottish Prison Service. By working together and pooling information, we will have a better chance of putting the criminal networks out of business.
The task force met for the first time on 22 October and meets again on 28 January. It is already clear that there is a lot that we can do. We can build on our knowledge of organised crime, take action to allow more assets to be seized, increase enforcement powers where necessary, support legitimate business and law-abiding communities and increase co-operation with law enforcement agencies in Europe and elsewhere.
We must build on our knowledge of organised crime. We need to learn more about the scale of the challenge that we face. This Government will provide direct support to the Scottish police service to build a clearer picture of who is up to no good in Scotland, who is orchestrating criminal activity in Scotland and elsewhere and who is supporting them and their criminal enterprises, and to identify the commodities from which they make their illicit and illegal profits.
We also need to seize assets. Asset seizure is one of the clear success stories in the fight against organised crime. We already have powers under both criminal and civil law to seize assets to remove the benefit that criminals have gained from their conduct and to allow the courts truly to balance the justice system. Those powers allow us to target the core of criminality by removing the profits of the criminals and crime groups that impact on Scottish communities.
However, we must look for ways of strengthening the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 further. We will extend the range of offences that are indicative of a criminal lifestyle. A lifetime of crime should be open to a lifetime of asset recovery, so we look to extend the time period for confiscation and asset recovery. If investigators were able to delve further into criminals' past financial records, that would assist in investigations, particularly into well-established organised criminals who have banked their criminal profits over many decades and who are now, sadly, living a life of luxury.
In order to tackle the lower-level offenders who are affiliated to wider and bigger organised criminal networks, l want there to be a reduction in the criminal benefit amount from £5,000 to £1,000, as well as a reduction in the minimum cash seizure threshold. The recent reduction from £5,000 to £1,000 has already been a particular success in Scotland, and there would be benefit in a further reduction. I have today written to the Home Secretary, seeking her support for those measures. Maximising asset recovery requires the proper tools. That is why, for the first time, a proportion of the money that is recovered will be reinvested in experts in financial recovery work to allow us to recover even more assets.
In his letter to the Home Secretary, has the minister referred to the possibility of Scotland retaining all the money that it gets under the 2002 act? I understand that 50 per cent of it goes south at the moment.
My understanding is that the figure is 50 per cent above £17 million per annum. We are obviously happy to discuss the matter. That particular aspect was not covered in my letter, but I expressed our desire to ensure that we can take more assets. The door is open, and if the member wishes to discuss the matter with us further, we are more than happy to do so.
We cannot tolerate a situation in which some young men in housing schemes aspire to be drug dealers. We need to punish hard those who offend; we also need to promote hope and provide opportunity. We want to demonstrate to communities that those who prey on them will be caught and that those communities will benefit from the wealth that has been stolen. The drug dealers' four-by-fours, villas and speedboats will be seized and sold, with the proceeds used to provide sporting and other activities for young people and communities. We will expand young people's horizons and increase their opportunities to develop their interests in an enjoyable and supported way. We hope to announce more detailed proposals very soon.
I very much appreciate what the minister has just said, but what will be done differently to persuade young people that there is another way—other than joining the criminal economy, which is often, unfortunately, the only way that is open to them?
The member and I have touched on such matters at hustings and on other occasions. She is aware that some matters are outwith the justice department's silo. The issue is one of getting youngsters into employment. In Scotland, the maxim that the devil finds work for idle hands applies. As the member will be aware, we are anxious to reinvest the money, and not simply in sporting activities, although a great deal of benefit comes from sporting activities and from providing facilities for youngsters who, in many instances, do not have many alternatives and whose time is spent consuming alcohol and getting up to low-level mischief, or indeed getting lured into serious organised crime.
There is no one particular way of ensuring that alternatives are available, but the member can rest assured that we recognise that, across Government, we must tackle hopelessness and despair, we must try to get people into work and we must use the proceeds of crime that we recover to make communities better places and to let our youngsters be all that they can be. We must also use the proceeds of crime to redress the balance in those areas where virtually no facilities are available to children—and where it is therefore of no surprise that they get up to mischief.
We will introduce proposals to strengthen legislation and further frustrate and disrupt serious and organised crime. We are neither reluctant to consider how other countries approach the problem nor to learn from their approaches. We are therefore looking to follow the examples of Ireland and Canada in creating a new offence of being involved in or directing serious crime. That sends a strong message to criminals who work together that they will be caught and suitably punished.
We must also support legitimate business. We are all familiar with the stories of criminals infiltrating the private security industry, which has shaped our view of that industry and of the people who work in it. As a result of regulation that came into force in November last year, we are already seeing rogues move out. However, we need to ensure that they do not now move on to other sectors, damaging the reputation of legitimate businesses and threatening the livelihoods of honest, hard-working people.
Let us take the example of taxi firms. Most taxi companies are fully law abiding, but we have all heard anecdotes about some taxi firms being used as a front for criminality, including money laundering. As I know from my own constituents and others, those illegal activities impact on legitimate business. Prices are undercut and companies go out of business, or the public simply lose faith in the integrity of businesses.
We cannot allow those activities to continue. We will take firm action to cut off business opportunities for illegal groups while supporting legitimate business to thrive in our communities. We will not hesitate to legislate to regulate business if need be. That is something that many legitimate taxi firms support, as it will safeguard their integrity and custom.
Scotland must also play a role on the world stage. I was in The Hague recently to learn more about Europol. An SCDEA officer is part of the UK liaison team at Europol, as is a member of the Crown Office. That direct link between Scotland and Europol has shown fantastic results. Although liaison with Europol has resulted in operational benefits and successes, work is on-going further to improve the interaction between Scotland and Europe and to make better use of the European intelligence system and the ability to share relevant data across national boundaries. I will also work with the Scottish police service to raise awareness of the role that Europol can play in supporting Scottish law enforcement and of the ways in which Scotland can help our partners anywhere to tackle serious organised crime.
On the effectiveness of Europol in helping to prevent crime in Scotland, is the minister satisfied that the intelligence that he receives from Europol regarding the trafficking of women in particular for use in the sex industry is of the required standard for him to do something about the matter?
I believe so. I met the director general of Europol. I am not aware of any evidence from police officers or organisations in Scotland that appropriate information is not coming through. I am happy to investigate that. I did not raise the matter with the director general, because my visit was only cursory—I was there for only a day, but I was happy to be enlightened. I understand that the relationship with Europol is meaningful and works well. We hope to encourage and facilitate further secondments of Scottish officers to Europol, because the director general of Europol made a request for more Scottish officers. That will not only benefit the individual officers by improving their knowledge but create links, provide information and benefit all of us.
I assure Margo MacDonald that if there is any suggestion that information is not coming through or that there is a blockage, I will not hesitate to use the opportunity that I have been afforded to go directly to the director general to discuss it. I will clarify the situation, but I am led to believe that the information coming through is adequate. Perhaps the reality is that we are dealing with a growing problem that is coming in from the Balkans, where information is less readily available than it would be in the Netherlands, France or Germany, where there are clear links. The problem is apparent not only in the Balkans but in the Ukraine, Turkey and other areas. Trafficking is a global problem that will require a global solution. That is why I undertake to check whether there are problems with the information that we are getting.
Margo MacDonald may rest assured that we are seeking to ramp up our involvement in Europol because we believe that that will benefit not only the individual officers on secondment but Scotland, Europe and other places as we seek to work together to tackle the people who are involved in trafficking.
Law-abiding, hard-working Scots expect us to tackle the menace of serious and organised crime and strip criminal gangs of the assets earned from their illegal activities. I am confident that we will rise to the challenge. We will tackle this menace at every level. We will seek to frustrate and destroy the criminal gangs and their overlords and to disrupt their lieutenants, who orchestrate their activities, and their foot soldiers, who make life in our communities a misery. We will seek to take down those who seek to destroy, while providing hope and opportunity for those who seek to improve themselves and their communities. Those who seek to profit from crime in our communities undermine legitimate businesses and threaten the very framework and fabric of our society. That cannot and will not be tolerated. We will create a safer and stronger Scotland for all our communities.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises that serious organised crime is a major problem that has a devastating impact on communities and businesses in Scotland; believes that tackling this menace should be a key priority for a safer and stronger Scotland; supports the Scottish police service and UK and European law enforcement agencies in ramping up their efforts to disrupt and destroy the criminal networks which inflict misery on law-abiding citizens; commends the agencies responsible for recovering over £17 million worth of assets using the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; supports the view that serious organised crime cannot be seen to pay and supports further measures to ensure that criminals are stripped of the profits made from the misery they cause in order to reinvest in the youth of Scotland and communities, and supports the role of the newly established Serious Organised Crime Taskforce in spearheading a renewed drive and commitment to address this type of crime.
I am pleased to see that, in 2008, our weekly discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will continue. I welcome this debate on serious organised crime.
We have known for some time that the nature of organised crime is changing. We are still reading in the daily press about some of Scotland's most notorious organised criminals and about some well-known names in criminal gangs in Glasgow and elsewhere—names that, in a sense, most of us have grown up with. However, in many ways, they represent a past world because organised crime, as the cabinet secretary has outlined, is now in another dimension. It can no longer be described as local; it is national and international. Our most notorious criminals are no longer the local ones. They have become more devious; some of them are exceptionally clever people who move from country to country to commit their crimes. Criminals can deliver a deal in one country, move assets to another and even involve a third country or, indeed, another continent. There is no longer a middleman in Manchester or Birmingham; the middleman is now in central Europe or Asia.
In a recent Scottish case, Lord Hodge gave the highest sentence ever for money laundering to James Stevenson—"the Iceman"—after the SCDEA used listening devices over a period of months to catch him. That goes to show the resources that now need to be in place in order to catch such criminals. In that case, as the Daily Record reported, attempting to use cash to buy 10 Skoda cars to set up a taxi firm was a bit of a giveaway.
The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 means that we can hurt such people and hurt their networks. However, we must send a message to all criminals that we in Scotland are capable of challenging the highest level of organised criminals, stripping them of their assets and jailing them with long sentences. That way, the lower-level criminals will not aspire to that behaviour. There is already talk in criminal circles that "the agency will get you in the end." That is the reputation that we want the SCDEA to have, and I believe that it has built up such a reputation over the years.
The member referred to long sentences for serious criminals. Does she see that being balanced by shorter sentences for less serious crimes?
I am clear that, in relation to serious organised crime, we need long sentences. My point is that showing criminals that we can hurt them by stripping them of their assets will be as big a deterrent as a long sentence will be.
Money laundering, human trafficking, drug dealing and corruption are all crimes that cause human misery. I remind members—not that we ever need to be reminded of the scourge of drug misuse in our communities—that a recent study showed that 62 per cent of women drug users have also been physically abused.
This is stuff that we know all too well and which we have debated many times in the Parliament. I want to speak about the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, because—along with the task force that the cabinet secretary referred to—it is a crucial body in the fight against organised crime. I am sure that I will not be the only person to pay tribute to the work of Graeme Pearson, who led the agency in its first years, and his vision of the creation of a joint campus at Gartcosh that could bring together the agencies that have been mentioned this afternoon. Perhaps whoever winds up for the Government could clarify whether that project will proceed. It is important that we hear loudly and clearly that the concept is still on the table.
I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the new director general of the SCDEA, Gordon Meldrum, on his appointment and to wish him all the best in what I think will be a challenging period ahead.
For a small country, Scotland has done exceptionally well in its response to organised and international crime. We are the largest users of Europol, we have a strong voice on the international stage and we have shown expertise and professionalism in the use of covert intelligence methods, which have brought us credibility. The national high-technology crime unit has a track record in tackling grooming activity and crimes against children on the internet. Further, this Parliament, passed the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003, which is an important piece of legislation in the fight against organised crime that affects children.
Lately, there has been a lot of discussion in the press about our policing structures and plans for the future. The rules and structures that we adopt can affect our effectiveness. The tensions that are currently being expressed in the national press about the relationship—really a public battle—between the SCDEA and the police's new common services agency must end. I hope that ministers will give their full support to the SCDEA and protect its operational autonomy. Those who have been following this matter will know that the outgoing director was explicit in raising his concerns on that issue.
It is also important to recognise the role that has been set for the new common services agency. It was not established as an overarching and centralising body for all police matters, but it has a crucial role in ensuring that we reinvest any savings in services. I have every confidence that the new chief executive will ensure that that happens.
Labour took bold steps in office by creating the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which is working. I look forward to more discussion and more detail about the proposal that the cabinet secretary made this afternoon to reform the act to make it even more effective. The act survived the European convention on human rights and is an important tool in the fight against organised crime.
I hope that other parties will support the Labour amendment. We just want to ensure that, in setting up the right structures and having the right legislation, we make the 2002 act a priority for resourcing. I hope that the Government will support our amendment.
Labour proposed to legislate for additional reforms, of which I will mention one. New violent offenders orders would have given courts extra powers to restrict where violent offenders could live and to prevent them from associating with particular individuals or organisations. We would like to make quite a few reforms to make the 2002 act even more effective.
In the time that remains, I will talk about a subject that the Parliament has discussed before—Scotland's role in tackling the serious crime of human trafficking. The United Nations estimates that 4 million people a year are smuggled worldwide and trafficked into slavery. In Italy, there are 200 trials pending for people trafficking. Women are bonded to their slave masters, and their families at home would be harmed if they revealed that they were trafficked.
It is shocking to find that trafficking is not just international but takes place on our own soil. Recent press reports said that women who were held as sex slaves in Scotland were bought for £7,000 and forced to have sex with up to 20 men a day and that human traffickers charged up to £60 a time for sex with the victims. Those women have now been freed, thanks to a massive police operation. They are among 17 sex slaves who have been rescued in a series of raids throughout Scotland in the past few months. That shows that we are making progress in tackling that crime. Every police force in Scotland is involved in the clampdown on human trafficking, which ensures that operation pentameter 2—a United Kingdom-wide effort to free women from the clutches of organised crime gangs—is happening in Scotland.
I will mention a project in Glasgow that deals with human trafficking, as it is in my constituency. It is an example of good practice and is the only dedicated trafficking project outside London, but it is restricted to dealing with women who are over 18 who have been the victims of commercial sexual exploitation and it excludes children and men in the sex industry. There is more work to do, but it should be acknowledged that Scotland has done well at tackling serious and complex structures of criminal organisation.
The work continues. I welcome the debate and what the cabinet secretary said. I look forward to future dialogue on ensuring that we have the right legislation, although Labour members are clear about the fact that the Scottish Government needs to commit the resources to make that happen.
I move amendment S3M-1101.1, to insert at end:
"and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that the necessary resources are in place to effectively implement the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002."
I welcome the debate. As Pauline McNeill said, this is the first week back, so we have the first justice debate, and another is due next week. I also welcome the Government's pledged commitment to tackle serious organised crime and to progress the previous Executive's work on that.
Many people may think of serious organised crime as being a far cry from their everyday lives, but the sad truth is that the activities of organised criminal operations and gangs have wide-ranging and devastating impacts on individuals, communities and businesses throughout Scotland. Organised criminals are involved in a wide range of activities that damage our country, from money laundering that is disguised as legitimate business to drug dealing, people trafficking and the sex industry.
Serious organised crime is a global issue, as the cabinet secretary made clear. It respects no national boundaries. The use of technologies and methods of communication means that criminals from Scotland operate around the world. Pauline McNeill made such points clearly.
It is estimated that serious organised crime costs the UK as a whole upwards of £20 billion every year. Legitimate businesses cannot compete with criminals who do not pay minimum wages, VAT or tax.
Serious organised criminals are involved predominantly in the sale of illegal drugs. That trade is built on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable sections of our society. Gangsters make millions of pounds of profits by dealing in the human misery of the drugs trade, which in 2006 resulted in 421 people dying, 16,000 children being brought up with drug-addicted parents and countless communities throughout Scotland living with the consequences of drug-related crime. Organised criminals are also involved in counterfeiting goods, smuggling alcohol, credit card fraud and identity theft, all of which have a direct impact on our constituents, and in the despicable and highly profitable business of human trafficking—usually the trafficking of young women to be abused in the sex industry. It is alarming that 13.5 per cent of people trafficking in the UK takes place in Scotland. That should be compared with the 10 per cent of overall crime that takes place here. It is now thought that more than 4,000 women a year are brought to Scotland against their will by traffickers. Many of those women are forced to work in the sex industry in saunas and private flats and as escorts.
Amnesty International has raised concerns with all of us about the identification of trafficking victims and the workings of the national referral mechanism. It is concerned that victims are being regarded as illegal immigrants and are being deported, and that there is the risk of retrafficking. Victims are, understandably, reticent as a result of fear of reprisals from traffickers or the shame of having been involved in the sex trade. I hope that the minister will agree to meet Amnesty International to discuss its concerns and investigate the adoption of mandatory procedures for the identification and referral of victims.
I, too, commend the police and the national and international enforcement agencies for their on-going hard work and dedication; for the significant improvements in tackling organised crime that they have made; and for their increased success in seizing drugs and illegally obtained cash and assets in Scotland in recent years. In the past, too many criminals have been able to keep the money that they have dishonestly acquired. It is vital that we continue to seize increasing amounts of that capital in order to strengthen public confidence in the operation of the justice system and ensure that we send a clear message to current and future generations that crime does not pay. We therefore welcome the approach that the cabinet secretary has outlined of extending time limits and reducing cash-seizure thresholds. Removing the assets of criminals not only prevents them from financing further illegal enterprises but stops them becoming the wrong kind of role models for Scotland's young people.
Fighting serious organised crime is a highly complex business that requires a range of specialists, from forensic accountants to information technology specialists. Organisations such as the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency and the Crown Office must be equipped with the people and resources that they need to combat an international problem. There is also a need for more police in our communities to pick up intelligence about activities on the ground, whether that is drug dealing or money laundering through nail bars, taxi firms or whatever. That is why it is essential that the Scottish National Party Government holds to its manifesto commitment to deliver 1,000 more police officers into our communities.
In government, the Liberal Democrats were involved in the creation of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, which is committed to tackling serious organised crime in all its forms. That agency has enjoyed considerable success since it was established. Its activity in 2006-07 resulted in the seizure of drugs with a street value of £7.5 million—including more than £4 million from class A drugs—and the arrest of 190 people. James Stevenson was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison. The agency's e-crime unit has successfully identified and arrested individuals who have attempted to use the internet as a means to target children for sexual purposes, and the agency provides vital assistance to the witnesses of crimes. It also works to educate children, young people and statutory and voluntary bodies about drugs issues. However, concerns have already been raised within the SCDEA, particularly by Graeme Pearson, about decision making and how it interfaces with the Scottish Police Services Authority. There have also been problems with the recruitment of officers. Obviously, there have been different views within local forces about the value and impact of seconding officers, but now that the agency can recruit directly, it is essential that it is supported in doing so effectively. Its annual report clearly states:
"The Agency continues to operate under establishment and is aware that this has a detrimental impact on how business is conducted."
We seek assurances that the Government will closely monitor that issue. We also echo the welcome that Pauline McNeill and others have given to the agency's new director, Gordon Meldrum.
We supported the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which has led to the recovery of £17 million in illegally obtained money and assets from individuals who have been involved in crime. It is only right that that money is recycled back into the very communities that the individuals have blighted so badly. In my constituency in Edinburgh, that has indeed been the case. There has been a campaign to encourage members of the public to come forward with information about local drug dealers. There has also been youth outreach work, improvements to leisure facilities, the introduction of closed-circuit television surveillance vehicles, and new resources for cleaning up graffiti. However, I welcome the cabinet secretary's point that some of the resources will go towards employing the specialists whom we need so that we can redouble our efforts and confiscate even more cash and assets in the future.
We have a record in government of taking effective action to tackle serious organised crime, so we wish the new Government well with the serious organised crime task force, which is in its early days. I hope that it will be an effective force for further action on the issue. It needs to work with organisations outside the UK to tackle the increasingly internationalised crime networks and prevent the flow of drugs into Scotland, and it needs to be able to achieve its aims of tackling serious crime more effectively through increased co-operation. We welcome the increased links with Europol and others.
A measure that would assist co-operation among the SCDEA, the Scottish Forensic Science Service, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the enforcement arm of HM Revenue and Customs is delivery of the Scottish crime campus at Gartcosh. The funding and the political will for the campus have been in place, but there have been delays. I ask the Lord Advocate to update us on that. I hope that she will assure us that progress is being made and that there is a timetable attached to that.
The Scottish Government must also be willing to co-operate and to show that it can work with the UK Government on matters of importance to Scotland such as tackling serious organised crime. Whether in relation to the British Transport Police or air-guns, the cabinet secretary has certainly been quite effective over the past few weeks in falling out with Westminster, but tackling serious organised crime is one area of joint endeavour where that cannot be allowed to happen. I was reassured by his comments today about the letter that he sent to the Home Secretary.
Today's debate should send a clear message that the Parliament and the Government are committed to the fight against serious organised crime. Like most members, I do not think for one second that the criminals whom we are talking about today are sitting by their computer screens and listening to my exceptionally good speech—I thought that it was exceptionally good, but never mind. The most effective message that we can send them is to have the resources available, the structures in place and the individuals in post to ensure that they are harried and harried again until their networks of misery are destroyed.
I move amendment S3M-1101.2, to insert at end:
"but regrets the Scottish Government's continued failure to implement the SNP's election promise of 1,000 extra police officers, which would contribute to the fight against serious crime."
I am tempted to say that if Margaret Smith comes to some harm in the next few days, we will know who is responsible.
In his opening remarks, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice stated that serious organised crime presents a major threat to Scotland's communities. I disagree. I think that it is the major threat. The evidence for that is perfectly clear. If it were not for the big-time criminals, we would not have the spin-offs that we see at all levels. Were it not for those at the top of the tree, there would not be the number of shambling drug abusers whom we see panhandling on the streets, there would not be as many women prostituting themselves to feed a drug habit, and not as much small-time property crime would be committed to get money for drugs. That highlights why we have to be so determined in combating those who are prepared to peddle human misery.
I would criticise the former Executive, the Government and indeed the Parliament under many headings, but I do not think that a fair analysis of the facts could lead us to say other than that there has been a determined effort to combat the problem. The problem is that we have to do more. We have all grown up with internationalism and we approve of it, but it has not come without problems. Businesses are now much more international in their outlook, and the way in which the drug barons and others carry on their illicit trade has a degree of sophistication that would make it an ideal model for study by Harvard Business School. The criminals are so sophisticated and so cunning—and they use every form of device that is available—that it is sometimes exceptionally difficult to combat them.
But combat them we must and, from what I have heard so far, I am sure that combat them we will, because failure to do so would have the most appalling consequences. That is why the Conservatives welcome enthusiastically the cabinet secretary's proposal to reduce seizure thresholds. Like Margaret Smith, I trust and am sure that that will not be yet another device to instigate conflict between the Westminster and Scottish Governments. We also support the cabinet secretary's plans to introduce a new offence. Again, that will have the unanimous support of the chamber.
We must look at ways of extending the battle against these people. As we are all aware, they are sophisticated and use all sorts of covers, such as taxi and security firms. We in turn have to become sufficiently sophisticated to combat them. To date, the operation of the SCDEA has been exceptionally good. We have seen signs of action, activity and success and the SCDEA and the Crown Office are to be congratulated on what has been achieved. Nevertheless, we must do much more.
On the operation of the agency, it was a matter of regret that we had to lose Graeme Pearson. Like Pauline McNeill, I pay public tribute to his outstanding pioneering contribution as the first director of the agency. It must also be said that some of the comments that were made subsequent to Graeme Pearson's departure were profoundly unhelpful. When those who are charged with maintaining law and order fall out among themselves, the only ones who are likely to benefit from such discord are those whom we seek to oppose—the bad guys. I hope that that lesson has been learned by all concerned.
That difficulty prompted me to wonder whether it is now necessary to look at the operation of the agency. I read with interest the Justice 2 Committee's report on the legislation that set up the SCDEA, which expressed concerns about the agency's level of autonomy and recommended that its director should be of chief constable status. It is worth looking at that again. It might be better if the SCDEA operated entirely autonomously, with its own budget and recruitment process. Chief constables will certainly have to be influenced to allow the SCDEA to recruit their brightest and best.
Although the McGraws and Stevensons are household names in Glasgow in particular, elsewhere in Scotland we have to combat the anonymous, shadowy figures who are making millions—in some cases, possibly billions—of pounds in international trade dealing in drugs, people trafficking, and counterfeit money. I am concerned about the level of resentment that Glasgow people in particular feel when they see people such as Stevenson and others who are involved in drug trafficking going to jail while their families are still living in million-pound houses and have a state-of-the-art Mercedes parked outside the door and holiday homes in Spain.
Of course, there have been successful recoveries, but I wonder whether we simply have to get a lot tougher. We should consider changing the onus of proof so that it no longer needs to be on the Crown. When someone has been convicted of drug dealing, has been given a significant prison sentence and has demonstrable assets, they should have to tell the Crown and the investigating authorities where that money came from. The onus of proof must be put on them. We require to go much further than we do at the moment. People who are unusually rich despite never having done a day's work in their life require to be pursued.
One problem is that often the Mercedes or house is owned not by the drug dealer but by his wife or son. What do we do about that? How do we address that problem?
Mr Pringle highlights what is undoubtedly a real problem, but at some stage the house will have been part of a transaction. In many instances, the house will have been bought by the drug dealer and then transferred to the wife. I am sorry, but that is good enough for me. It is clear that the drug dealer owns the house. We should proceed in that way because we cannot allow such things to continue to happen.
You should begin to wind up now.
The Mr Bigs of the criminal world need to know that we are after their houses—whether in Spain or in posh areas of Glasgow—and that we are after their cars.
I am encouraged by the attitude that has been adopted in today's debate. Both amendments are eminently supportable from our point of view, but I would like to think that there could be some unanimity of thinking at the end of the day.
We move to the open debate. Speeches should be of around six minutes.
Serious organised crime is one of the most difficult issues before our Parliament because it goes right to the basis of our civil society.
I begin by going back to a book that was published 32 years ago. I refer not to "The Red Paper on Scotland", which launched the career of a remarkable politician and economist with undervalued talents elsewhere—Vincent Cable, of course—but to a book called "The Crime Industry", which the Scottish home department commissioned from the late John Mack of the University of Glasgow and my colleague Hans-Jürgen Kerner, who is now professor of criminology at the University of Tübingen. The book was eventually published by the Council of Europe but, as far as I know, the great Eric Ambler and I are about the only people who have actually read it.
Concluding that crime was both serious and organised, Mack and Kerner said even in 1975—when computers of the power of my laptop needed to be the size of this chamber—that computing, along with the existence of tax havens and the globalisation of business, would revolutionise the crime industry. In a recent seminar at Tübingen, Professor Kerner had to add a fourth and very serious development: the tainting involvement of regulation and of the forces of law and order in this enormous industry. I will explain that point later.
The first element is that this is a global business. As everyone has said, crime is second only to tourism in international trade. It involves human trafficking, drugs and counterfeiting. Of course, counterfeiting refers not just to the counterfeiting of cash but to products that flood in from China—actually sponsored by the Chinese state—that transact an estimated £2 billion a year in the Barras of Glasgow. All of that is lubricated by money laundering, which turns criminal gains into legitimate wealth. I refer members to Nick Kochan's book "The Washing Machine"—published, interestingly, not in Britain but in the States—which details how the situation has involved the institutions of the City of London.
The second development is computing. Who among us has not encountered in the past 24 hours an offer in our inbox asking us to verify the details of our account? Who has not received one of those exotic letters from east Africa urging us to help someone who could remove large quantities of money, which somehow got into a Swiss bank account, if only they knew our bank account? What damage such letters might do if the writers ever learned to spell, but that seems to elude them.
The third element is tax havens. I refer not just to the Andorras and Liechtensteins, where big businesses are holed up—including the likes of British American Tobacco—but to our rich collection of such havens in the United Kingdom. Those include the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and—according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—the City of London.
The situation is much worse than it was in 1975, especially when we analyse Kerner's final element: regulation. According to Kerner, the clever criminal needs and uses the law. My information on this matter also comes from my friend Clive Emsley, professor at the Open University and a notable academic authority on British policing.
First, the police require contacts with the underworld and lesser villains who supply information—the sleepers and narks. Deals are done, because those sources of information must be protected. The firewall is flawed, and deals can reach out and embrace officers of the law. Members have heard some of that alluded to in the despairing words of Graeme Pearson on leaving the SCDEA.
Secondly, our police in the 18th century sense—those to whom Adam Smith refers as patrolling the transactions of the market—have been in constant, damaging flux, especially under the present Government. Look at the comments of my friend Bill Keegan, the economics correspondent of The Observer, on the despair of people in HM Revenue and Customs and the Serious Fraud Office at the way in which the mix of regulatory authorities is constantly being changed. People are retired early and new institutions are established, which have to settle down and find their own ways of operation. Look at the Serious Fraud Office inquiry into BAE, our last major industrial complex in Scotland, which was terminated because reasons of state took precedence over justice.
We may have reached the stage specified by, I think, William Cobbett, who said:
"The law will gaol the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the Common.
But lets the bigger villain loose
Who steals the Common from the goose."
It is as if we have gone back to that great old Scottish villain, Long John Silver, who says en route on the Hispaniola that he will make sure that none of his companions comes back, because when he is riding in his coach in London he does not want people informing on him. The problem in our country goes much higher than the villain in his Ponderosa ranch-style house in a Glasgow suburb.
The cabinet secretary will remember that, in a wide-ranging contribution to the first major debate on justice matters after last year's election, he acknowledged that much of the work of the previous Labour-led Executive on initiatives and legislative reform in the justice portfolio was sensible and should be built on. I said then that such an approach by Mr MacAskill and his ministerial colleague Mr Ewing would have the Labour Party's support, because when the Government's policies demonstrably assist the development of a safer, stronger Scotland, they deserve to be supported.
The terms of today's Government motion are sound, as it acknowledges the work of previous Administrations, the progress that has been made and the major challenges that, as Bill Aitken and Margaret Smith said, still lie ahead. All of us agree on those points.
In the debate last June, the cabinet secretary stated:
"Organised crime causes misery to the people of Scotland."
That is a truism, and the cabinet secretary was absolutely correct. He made clear that the Government intended
"to pursue organised crime with vigour and with a vengeance."—[Official Report, 6 June 2007; c 407.]
That was the Labour Party's view when it was in government, and I dare say that all parties represented in the chamber will continue to support the Administration as long as it maintains that approach.
Tackling serious organised crime is central to the shared aim of members from all parties of creating a safer Scotland in which communities are not bedevilled by drug dealing, prostitution, money laundering and small arms trading. It is up to the Parliament, acting in a co-ordinated fashion with both our Westminster counterparts and European agencies, to ensure that the police and law enforcement agencies are properly equipped to deal with an increasingly sophisticated international underworld.
Organised criminal gangs are, in effect, illegitimate businesses that exist for the sole purpose of making large sums of money. They are prepared to go to any lengths, up to and including corruption, intimidation and extreme violence, to protect their rackets and ensure that they thrive and prosper.
We know that such gangs have adopted an increasingly elaborate system of measures, including counter-surveillance techniques and intricate money-laundering arrangements, to protect their investments, as referred to in the previous speech. Therefore, it is right and proper that the Government provides our police and law enforcement agencies with the resources and legislative framework to allow them to deal effectively with such organised criminal gangs in order to prevent the squalor, despair and death that gangsters cause in our communities.
Take drugs, for example. Drug trafficking, as members are aware, causes serious problems in communities throughout Scotland. It is estimated that the UK's crack and heroin market grosses over £3 billion a year. Many of the people who become addicted to drugs turn to crime to pay for their habit. In effect, every pound that is spent on heroin results in an estimated £4 in economic and social costs. Of course, the cost in misery for communities and for the addicted individuals trapped in that twilight world is incalculable.
Serious organised crime is corrosive. It eats away at the very fabric of our society. Mr MacAskill called it a cancer and he is right. That is why previous Holyrood Governments were correct to work with Westminster to disrupt serious organised crime and bring those behind it to justice. It was proper for Labour to propose the setting up of the SCDEA and members in the previous session of Parliament were right to support its establishment in May 2006.
The establishment of the SCDEA on 1 April 2006 was also crucial in ensuring effective co-operation between law enforcement agencies at UK level. Indeed, much of the success of the SCDEA and the police in tackling serious organised crime has been a result of their ability to co-operate effectively with other law enforcement agencies throughout the UK and around the world. The Serious Organised Crime Agency has enhanced the capability of Scotland and the UK to respond to international crime. The continuing successful employment of the powers that are available under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is due in no small measure to such co-operation. The Lord Advocate announced the good news in October that, in the past six months of this financial year, £2 million was secured from criminals. That is why I welcome the recent establishment of the serious organised crime task force, which is a sound, if unspectacular, initiative.
The Government needs to consider going further still. I note that Mr MacAskill said that the Government will introduce proposals on serious organised crime. I have a proposal for the Government. Labour's manifesto at the recent election included a commitment to place before the Parliament a serious and organised crime bill. It was envisaged that such a bill would introduce a range of new powers that would be fashioned to make it easier to fight crime both across the border with England and internationally. The provisions of such a bill would include serious crime prevention orders, targeted at organised criminals and the markets in which they operate, and powers to allow public bodies to share information with anti-fraud organisations to help to spot activity and individuals linked to suspected fraud. Those and other elements of such a bill merit consideration. Given that it is probable that one of the law officers will sum up, I will write to the cabinet secretary to ask him for his views and those of his Government on the proposal to put a specific serious and organised crime bill before the Parliament.
After all, we all want to do whatever is practical to counter the threat that is posed by serious organised crime to the vital interests of the people whom we represent. For that to happen, we need all parties, including the governing party, to be ready to co-operate and adopt ideas that have merit. Our communities, quite correctly, demand no less of the Parliament.
I start by saying that I am rather disappointed in the Lib Dem amendment. It does them no favours and it belittles the debate, which is about a very serious issue. I note that there are only two Lib Dems in the chamber. Perhaps their colleagues have taken the same view as I have: the amendment belittles the Lib Dems.
In my speech I sought to remind Sandra White and others that in the fight against serious organised crime there is a role not only for specialists but for those on the ground, such as police officers, who know what is going on and who know their communities. We made a manifesto commitment to an extra 1,000 police officers exactly for that reason, which is why we referred to it in our amendment.
I do not want to know about the Liberal Democrats' manifesto commitments, some of which certainly have not been taken forward. That said, I take the member's point. However, my point is that the amendment belittles this debate. The issue could have been raised in other debates.
For too long, Scotland—and, in particular, Glasgow and the west—has been scarred by the activities of organised gangs that have terrorised the general public and have made huge profits from others' misery. As a result, I welcome not only this debate but the cabinet secretary's recent announcement that he will crack down on the use of taxi firms for money laundering purposes by making it easier for councils to limit the number of private hire cabs.
I also welcome the proposal for legislation to regulate security firms, which, as most of us know, have some very high profile clients. We all recall the conviction last year of James Stevenson, who, as Pauline McNeill and Bill Aitken have pointed out, was sentenced to more than 12 years for his part in money laundering activities, which included the setting up of a taxi firm. Moreover, Tam McGraw, who died last year leaving a fortune estimated at £14 million, laundered money through taxi firms and security companies. We should welcome the length of the sentence imposed on Stevenson as a clear message that we will not tolerate those who participate in organised crime. Indeed, the courts should make a commitment to take such a view in the future, as only through our taking a consistently tough line on sentencing can we hope to deter others.
I also welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to crack down on the use of tanning salons for money-laundering purposes. I have raised this issue many times over the years, particularly in relation to unmanned salons where unsupervised and uninformed people simply put £1 into a machine. No one checks their age or, indeed, what they get up to, and I assure the chamber that some salons have been closed down because of the unsavoury practices that have taken place in them. I look forward to hearing more on that matter from the cabinet secretary.
By bringing together different agencies and bodies in the fight against organised crime, the serious organised crime task force will be highly effective in achieving our desired aims. For too long, criminals have been able to operate because intelligence on their activities has not been as widely available to other agencies as it might have been. As Bill Butler and others have pointed out, through this platform of co-operation the task force will be in a perfect position to work with its UK counterpart, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and Europol, to fight and respond to the threat of organised crime on an international level.
As the motion makes clear, more than £17 million has already been recovered through the provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. However, although that situation should be welcomed and applauded, it can be improved on. In fact, in response to a question on 15 November 2007, the First Minister said that
"we are actively looking at what improvements can be made"
to those provisions and that
"We are also considering ways to increase the value of assets seized."—[Official Report, 15 November 2007; c 3470.]
I welcome both that statement and the cabinet secretary's on-going dialogue with Westminster. In that respect, I wonder whether the cabinet secretary is able to give us some idea of when he will announce what improvements can be made to the 2002 act to ensure further that criminals get the message that we will not tolerate their activities and that they will not benefit from them.
The cabinet secretary also mentioned that the Government is working with several organisations on using recovered assets to help young people throughout the country and on drawing up specific funding proposals to increase available opportunities. I would be grateful if he could provide us with an update on how those plans are progressing. After all, investing in a positive future for our young people is the best guarantee that they will not turn to crime in the first place. Of course, we must ensure that any money for such initiatives makes a real difference to the lives of the people that they target. I am interested in finding out how that will be achieved.
We will debate the legislative consent motion on the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill next week. I hope that the money that will be raised through its provisions and which will be administered by the Big Lottery Fund with guidance from ministers will be used specifically for local initiatives aimed at helping more young people to become involved in activities and projects of interest to them and their community.
By sending out the message that criminals will receive the maximum sentences that are available to the courts and that they will not profit from their activities, we are going down the right road. By coupling that message with the bringing together of the crime agencies to hunt down those criminals, we will take the fight to the criminals who are blighting our communities.
I support the motion and the amendments. I have no difficulty whatsoever in supporting Margaret Smith's amendment. Indeed, I am very pleased with her amendment. I ask the chamber to reflect on the pan-European and UK co-operation dimensions to the debate. I also ask the chamber to reflect on what my colleagues mentioned and what is most important—the serious crime of human trafficking.
When the cabinet secretary, or one of his colleagues, winds up the debate, I ask him to tell me what meetings he has attended with ministers of other regional governments in Europe at which serious organised crime was on the agenda. If such meetings were held, were any significant decisions taken? Also, has the cabinet secretary attended meetings with his counterparts in Wales, Northern Ireland, and Westminster? If so, are further meetings planned with those partners to work through the agendas that are relevant to serious organised crime? Is he planning any major intergovernmental conferences in Scotland with key stakeholders to share knowledge and experience in this vital area? How does he propose to report back to the Parliament on any such meetings?
Now that the European Union has extended its boundaries and EU membership includes Romania and Bulgaria, will the cabinet secretary make a point of exploring with those two countries in particular the ways in which Scotland can share its knowledge and experience? We should be participating in the various EU programme initiatives to welcome the new member states.
By developing relationships with countries such as Romania and Bulgaria, and thereby having a particular focus on them, we will open up the possibility of making a real difference in countries that are, like Scotland, on the periphery of Europe. Scotland is the westernmost point of the EU, and Romania and Bulgaria mark the easternmost point. The British Council is already well established in those countries, which gives us a good foundation for taking forward such work. We know that those countries are the gateway into and out of Europe. As intelligence is gathered in the future, establishing good relationships with those countries could prove to be of real benefit.
Like other members who have spoken in the debate, I share the call for members to underline—underline in triplicate—our support for all those who are involved in the huge challenge of tackling the trafficking of women and children for the sex industry. Just before Christmas, representatives of the Women's Guild in Scotland, whose membership exceeds 30,000 lobbied members on the issue and told us of the guild's grave concern about the trade. Parliamentarians who attended the presentation were visibly moved by what they heard and we gave the guild a commitment that we would do our utmost to support its campaign against trafficking.
Although the cabinet secretary had to speak about the theft of famous paintings and property, my concern is more for crimes of violence, such as those that are perpetrated by the criminals who are involved in the serious organised crime of trafficking.
I welcome the debate. I also welcome the Scottish Government's creation of the serious organised crime task force.
As each member who has spoken thus far has said, organised crime has a daily impact on Scottish communities and individuals. It has a detrimental effect on Scottish life and our business community. The co-ordination of specialist expertise, skills and knowledge in the task force will help to reduce the amount of organised crime on our streets and send out a message that tackling serious organised crime is a priority for the Government.
I am confident that the task force will complement the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and address specific Scottish considerations and problems that are distinct to our communities. Scotland has a unique legal system and policing culture and needs a dedicated task force to work alongside the SOCA. The Scottish Government is taking steps to ensure the safety of its individuals and communities. In that respect, the task force should be welcomed.
As the cabinet secretary, Pauline McNeill and Sandra White have said, one of the primary industries that criminal gangs exploit is the private hire taxi trade. Organised crime can prosper only if it has a respectable business as a front for criminal behaviour. Taxi companies are ideal fronts for criminal activity, as they can be presented as legitimate businesses. Concerns exist that the regulations that govern the licensing of private hire vehicles are too lenient and allow criminals to infiltrate the business as a cover for criminal activity and money laundering. We should make a distinction between private hire taxi firms and the black hackney cabs. The black cab or public hire taxi trade is regulated tightly by the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, but the private hire trade is not subject to those stringent regulations. We therefore need to tighten the regulations on the private hire trade.
Under the current regulatory regime, an individual can obtain a licence to run a private hire vehicle with relative ease. Applications can be made to the local authority on behalf of an individual or company, with a small application fee of about £200. The local authority then forwards the application to the police, who perform a background check for criminal activity. Provided that the police check does not reveal any such activity, the local authority will then grant the licence, following a safety check of the vehicle, which costs only £100. In short, for a relatively small amount of money, a criminal business can prosper easily. On passing the aforementioned safety check, the licence will be granted and thereafter the vehicle will be subject only to an ordinary MOT test, with no maximum age limit. Compare that to the regulation of the black cab industry, in which two thorough safety checks of vehicles are often required per year. The stricter regulations in the public hire industry make it significantly more difficult for criminals to infiltrate the industry, so the private hire industry must follow suit.
It is widely known that there is no limit on the number of private hire licences that councils can give out. The local authorities' inability to limit the number of private hire licences makes it difficult to control entry to the profession and thus easier for organised crime to operate on Scotland's streets. The situation damages the good name of legitimate and hard-working taxi firms and drivers throughout the county, who are in the majority. With the black cab industry, the 1982 act gives local authorities the power to limit the number of public hire taxi licences that are available annually. The number is based on an in-depth survey of demand in the area and ensures that enough taxis are available to provide good customer service while allowing fair competition among local businesses. Importantly, the system makes it significantly more difficult for criminals to enter the trade.
The current lax regulatory regime for the private hire trade has made that part of the industry an open target for criminal gangs. It should be stressed that the fault does not lie with local authorities or the police, as they do not have the power to fight that lax regime. Legislation to allow local authorities to limit the number of private hire licences would offer protection to the taxi industry from criminal gangs and would control entry into the profession. Organised crime affects the lives of many hard-working and honest Scottish individuals and their families, so we need to crack down on it. It is apparent that more stringent regulations would be the first step in tackling the problems that taxi companies face. Too many criminal gangs use apparently legitimate businesses such as taxi companies as fronts for illegal activity. Steps should be taken to put them out of business and remove them from Scotland's streets.
I support fully the role of the newly established serious organised crime task force in bringing together all the major agencies and in spearheading a renewed drive and commitment to tackle such crime in Scotland. I ask those agencies to make the regulatory regime of the private hire trade a priority area on which action must be taken. I back the motion in the name of the cabinet secretary.
I asked to speak in this debate even though the subject is outwith my shadow portfolio, because it means so much to people in my constituency. The debate gives me an opportunity to relate some of the serious experiences that I have heard about. I am grateful for that opportunity.
As has been widely acknowledged, serious crime matters. It profoundly affects the quality of life of many Scots. Unless the issues are adequately addressed, we cannot talk seriously about the regeneration of places such as the east end of Glasgow—as we did earlier during the statement on sportscotland—and we cannot talk about one Scotland. We cannot talk about real cohesion or real opportunity when too many of our fellow citizens suffer profoundly in the way that we have heard.
I like to think of myself as being quite streetwise. I grew up in the east end of Glasgow in a traditional working class home and I like to think that I have seen a bit of life. However, I was not prepared for what I was to face when I became an MSP. I was not prepared for the scale of this problem and how it affects people.
It can be difficult to represent constituencies in the east end of Glasgow, because—quite properly—we want to talk about the many strengths of the communities and the opportunities within them. My constituency has a number of very prosperous communities—in fact, Tam McGraw himself lived in one of them. However, on too many occasions I have had to comfort a grieving mother or father—grieving over the unnecessary and violent death of their child. It is an appalling experience.
I also have experience of listening to constituents who are desperate about the scale of violence in their communities. They have expressed deep anguish about how a child can be raised in such circumstances. Families have approached me, terrified and desperate to remain anonymous. They have described what it is like to live beside a family that is clearly engaged in organised crime. Families have been intimidated, and some have been burned out of their houses for not complying absolutely with the rules of the streets. Young people are regularly and systematically attacked on those streets. The most brutal thing of all is perhaps some people's sense of impunity. They believe that they operate above the law, and they seem to get away with it. As Bill Aitken said, it is galling for other people to see the clear and ostentatious wealth of such people on their streets. Those other people cannot understand that, and they ask us to help.
We have all raised such matters relentlessly with the police. The police know who the criminals are and are determined to deal with them. The police are our friends in dealing with the criminals; I appreciate the efforts of the police and I share their outrage and disgust.
Like others, I pay tribute to the dedicated work of Graeme Pearson. He knows the areas well and has worked very effectively. He has pursued organised villains who have seemed to escape justice, and he has brought them to justice. However, we have to be honest—not enough such people have been brought to justice. We have to do much more to target and arrest people who, through devious and violent means, exploit the most vulnerable people in our societies.
In my conversations with the police, one thing that came across repeatedly was the need to maintain and then increase the resources spent on surveillance. I will want to pursue that issue with the appropriate ministers and law officers. Surveillance is critical. As other members have said, as soon as we develop a response to organised crime, the criminals develop other crimes by using their intelligence and their considerable resources. We have to be constantly on our guard.
I also wish to discuss antisocial behaviour. I listened to Kenny MacAskill earlier and I agree, of course, that prevention is always the best policy when possible. We will always want to divert young people from criminal activity. Many people are involved in the margins of serious crime; we can reach out to those people and pull them away.
Organised criminals use antisocial behaviour as part of their strategy of fear. They use and encourage gang fighting in order to create a culture of fear and intimidation and to create what are, in effect, no-go areas. People are either on the side of the network of organised crime and its foot soldiers, or they have to be silent observers. Organised criminals begin with certain targeted disorder. They recruit from crimes and ensure that antisocial behaviour on their streets is allowed to go on unchecked. I accept that antisocial behaviour is only one dimension of the issue of serious organised crime, but if we tackle it we will make the lives of organised criminals more difficult and will at least take one weapon away from them.
Bill Aitken properly recognised the strong commitment in the past to tackling serious organised crime. I pay tribute to Cathy Jamieson and the many others who have worked on that. However, it is a great sorrow to me that Tam McGraw's so-called empire was not brought to its knees before he died. I hope that we can galvanise our efforts as a result of the debate to ensure that the Parliament is relevant to all the people we seek to represent, and that we truly understand the day-to-day reality and violence that some people have to live with. We must ensure that our police are fully equipped, and that organised crime faces the full force of the law. We must say to our people with all sincerity and belief that no one in Scotland is above the law.
I have great pleasure in speaking in the debate because, unlike the subjects of other debates, serious organised crime in Scotland is an issue that resonates with people and is not viewed in the abstract. Over the years, there have been written parliamentary questions and debates on the issue, especially with regard to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Two years on from the 2005 act, the issue was part of the new Scottish Government's key principles and priorities in accordance with its objective of creating safer and stronger communities. I welcome today's motion. The eight Scottish police forces, HM Revenue and Customs and the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency have made great strides in their attempts to reduce the activities of organised crime.
I will talk more about the methods that are employed by the crime overlords, while acknowledging that Scotland is just a pawn in worldwide organised crime. I hope that a lasting benefit of the debate is that a light is shone on the activities of crime families and how deeply the problem is embedded in our society. Many of the resources of the various crime enforcement agencies are targeted at the fight against illegal drugs in our communities—to which Bill Butler referred—and the associated human costs, namely family break-up. As we have heard in recent debates, grandparents are forced to intervene to provide support to counter the problems that are associated with second and third-generation drug addiction.
Clearly, economics is a factor. Illegal drugs such as cocaine are cheaper and more affordable because, in recent times, the market has been flooded by an oversupply of class A drugs in our urban and rural communities. The drugs are not produced in Scotland, which adds an international dimension to the criminal activities. The returns for getting involved are deemed to be worth while financially, which reduces the risks in the eyes of those who commit organised crime on a daily basis—it is their perverse economic contribution to society. A number of years ago, at a seminar, a senior police officer indicated that the black economy, through the drugs industry, was the third or fourth highest earner in Scotland. That shows the value of that market. The availability of class A drugs, and people's demand for them, drives the returns from crime. We should take any opportunity we can to smash that economic force.
Since its establishment, the SCDEA has acknowledged the important principle of following the money. One of the agency's key operating functions, the Scottish money laundering unit, recognises that crime is not confined to some small-scale outfit operating in the schemes of Scotland's bigger urban cities. The activities of some of Scotland's professions need serious scrutiny, as they can unwittingly and sometimes tacitly offer a support structure to protect organised crime's ill-gotten gains.
As my colleague Stuart McMillan said in connection with the private hire car companies that are being established throughout Scotland, local authority planning and licensing departments are not always best equipped to tackle the level of activity that is associated with organised crime in their areas. As we have heard, many MSPs have been approached with allegations that builders or private hire taxi companies are nothing more than front organisations for serious organised crime. I am not saying that every individual or company in those industries is involved in organised crime, but the situation has become so bad that legitimate businesses are under threat from criminal elements. The laundering of ill-gotten gains through such routes means that legitimate companies often struggle to maintain their businesses.
The need to tackle serious organised crime has never been greater in today's society, and it is right that the Scottish Government should give such a high priority to its desire to create safer communities. It is a fair comment that crime families not only operate in the sectors of business to which I have referred, but move into others when they see opportunities. I am surely not the only one who has been surprised by the proliferation of so-called business enterprises—tanning parlours and nail salons seem to be the latest such enterprises—over the past few years.
Like many other members who are present, I had the dubious pleasure of being in the chamber for the members' business debate on the Glasgow Milton and Chirnsyde community initiative. The debate was not bad—quite the opposite: the practical examples that were raised during the debate highlighted the courage of a community and its activists under real attack from organised crime in a shameful state of affairs—but the lack of support that the community activists received from officialdom showed signs of institutional inertia.
That inertia should not be repeated in a modern Scotland. Indeed, I am hopeful that the serious organised crime task force will make a significant and sustained contribution to tackling organised crime head on and ensuring that the proceeds of crime are redirected to assist communities in our fight against organised crime.
I conclude by supporting Margaret Smith's plea that the cabinet secretary should make every effort to speed up the creation of the Scottish Police Services Authority campus at Gartcosh so that we can bring under one roof the combined forces that can tackle crime head on, not only in Scotland or Britain but throughout Europe and the rest of the world. As I mentioned, crime is not confined to Scotland. The international dimension shows not only that we have to tackle crime at root cause in Scotland, but that we must work with other agencies throughout the world to ensure that we tackle it at that level. We must not become insular and consider only Scotland's problems, but should work with agencies throughout the world to ensure that we root out the real causes of crime that blight our society today.
The debate has been vital in maintaining the dialogue between elected representatives that is required to tackle an adaptive and constantly evolving problem. I agree with the minister, Margaret Smith, Pauline McNeill and others when they say that organised crime is now an international business. It is still a serious issue in Scotland. There are examples of it everywhere and many businesses suffer.
Stuart McMillan rightly focused on the taxi trade. I remember well a private hire firm that was run by a criminal element. It took a huge concentrated effort by councillors—I was one of them—the licensing committee, officials and police to bring that firm to book, but that did not happen before the taxi office in Edinburgh had burned to the ground and the police officers involved had been threatened and intimidated. At the end of the day, the council won and that firm was put out of business. That is an example of how we can get rid of some organised criminals.
If members speak to property developers, many will tell them that, in some areas, site protection money is still a serious concern. More harrowing still is the fact that Scotland's drug trade remains a multimillion pound business. That said, our uniformed organisations and judiciary have taken massive steps forward in recent years. More than £6 million was seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in the last year alone, £3 million of which is set to be reinvested in community projects—I will return to that point. That figure has risen year on year since the 2002 act was passed, under the previous Executive.
As my colleague Margaret Smith said, the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency has gone from strength to strength, performing an important co-ordination and intervention role. Like others, including Pauline McNeill, Bill Aitken and Margaret Curran, I will take a moment to acknowledge the personal contribution that has been made to the agency by Graeme Pearson, the first director of the SCDEA. During his time at the agency, he transformed the organisation to make it more like the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with a remit to tackle all organised crime across Scotland and to liaise with British and many other international police forces and other agencies. Under him, the agency had great success in tackling crime. In 2005 to 2007, £30 million-worth of drugs were seized and, between 2004 and 2007, more than £23 million-worth of assets. I welcome the appointment of Gordon Meldrum as director general of the SCDEA from 1 January. I wish him well in his new job, and I know that he will have the co-operation of us all.
Pauline McNeill was absolutely right to say that the best way to hit criminals is in their pockets. That will help to stop people going into crime. I very much welcome the minister's commitment to consider more ways to hit the criminals where it hurts most—their assets.
I return to the money that is raised by the seizure of assets. Those funds have been reinvested in six local authorities, including Edinburgh, and councils have been able to target the extra funds. In Edinburgh's case, the money has been spent mainly on young people. For example, £750,000 has been focused on a youth services strategy. The Go4it/open all hours scheme gives young people the opportunity during the summer, Easter and October holidays to try a range of sports activities using the council's sport and leisure facilities, and there are other examples including sports programmes for young people in Muirhouse and Holyrood. Those are good examples of how money that is seized is being used positively.
It is clear that the battle is not yet won. Indeed, the Parliament could do more. Our uniformed organisations and judiciary see the effects of organised crime every day. They know where the problems are and where it would be best to target resources. It is a matter of ensuring that they have every tool at their disposal. We believe that more officers and more resources are required. Having 1,000 extra police, which was promised in the Government's manifesto, would be a good start.
Any plans for centralisation must be resisted. Calls have been made in some quarters for the expansion of the scope of the Scottish Police Services Authority, but that organisation has rightly been labelled by the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, Colin McKerracher, as "a fledgling organisation". The SPSA is simply not ready to take on more responsibility. As the Government has pledged to cut bureaucracy, the authority should take heed of the case of the former deputy chief constable of Strathclyde Police, Ricky Gray, who took early retirement as he was fed up fighting with civil servants and was concerned about the accountability of the SPSA quango.
There are areas in which more must be done. For example, the serious organised crime task force, to which members have referred, has real potential for further interaction with organisations outside the UK to stop the flow of drugs into the country. Generally, however, we are moving in the right direction. The crux is that the structure that we have in place has statistically proven more and more effective year on year. A rethink, at this stage, is not required.
I agree with Bill Aitken that all of us—including us in the Parliament and Gordon Meldrum—must do more. I am confident that that is everybody's aim. The Government's motion might best be described as uncontroversial; it is a strong statement of intent without any indication of far-reaching changes. In some respects I welcome that, given the widespread progress that is being made. What is required is not tinkering, but support for organisations that are performing well.
Perhaps it is too much to hope that Mr MacAskill, in his closing remarks—I am sorry; I had thought that Mr MacAskill would close the debate, but I have learned otherwise. Instead, I should refer to what we very much hope to hear in the Lord Advocate's closing remarks. I am not sure, however, that any commitment to new police officers is likely to be forthcoming in that speech. I say to the SNP that, if we want to win the battle with organised crime, we need more resources on the front line. That means more police officers. I support the motion and both the amendments.
The debate has been useful as it has allowed us to consider the issues connected with serious crime and how we might tackle it. There is much in the Government motion that we can support and the debate has been generally consensual, but there is also much that we must question and consider critically in the light of the Government's recent actions. Sandra White will not like it, but there are questions to ask—I am pleased that she has left the chamber.
There can be little doubt that serious organised crime is a major problem facing Scotland and that it has had a devastating impact on communities and businesses. Yes, the tackling of serious crime should be a key priority; yes, we can all support the view that serious organised crime cannot be seen to pay and we can support measures that strip criminals of the profits that they make from the misery that they have caused; and yes, we support the Scottish police and UK and European law enforcement agencies in ramping up their efforts to disrupt and destroy criminal networks, which inflict misery on law-abiding citizens.
It is perhaps disappointing, therefore, that the Government's actions have shown that its commitment to the motion is less than fulsome. For example, let us consider the Government's support for the police to allow them to tackle serious crime. Before the election, we were told that the SNP would be putting an extra 1,000 police officers on the beat, but now we all know that the number will be much less than the original one. We will support the Liberal amendment, which highlights that issue. Despite what Sandra White might think, the issue is an important part of this debate. It is interesting to note in passing that the Liberals failed to deliver the extra police numbers when they were in government, but I am pleased that they have come round to the Conservative way of thinking.
Will the member give way on that point?
I want to make some progress.
How about support for the other UK law enforcement agencies, to which the Government also refers in its motion? I am not sure how that fits with the views that the cabinet secretary expressed recently when he tried to create another battle between Holyrood and Westminster by criticising the number of stop and searches that had been carried out by the British Transport Police in the fight against terrorism. He said:
"I think the public would be right to look for a clear explanation on why the British Transport Police in Scotland … need to use these powers … It's a genuine cause for concern."
He also said:
"The British Transport Police seem to be taking a diktat from London."
To challenge serious organised crime, Scotland must be prepared to work with organisations throughout the world. Tackling such crime can be done successfully only if it is done by the UK as a whole.
The SNP Government in its anti-British crusade has in recent weeks been using the British Transport Police to cause a constitutional row. Surely it is the job of the Scottish Government to support all the forces in Scotland, which are working to protect Scotland's people, rather than undermine them. Although I am pleased that the Government wants to talk the talk, it is important that we see actions to back up its fine words.
We are aware that fewer than 140 section 44 stop and searches have been carried out by the Scottish police forces, but more than 14,000 have been carried out in six months or so by the British Transport Police. Would we be correct to assume that Mr Stevenson, Mr Gorman and others were apprehended by the Scottish police forces? As a result of the 14,000 to 16,000 British Transport Police searches, how many serious organised criminals were detained, apprehended or brought to account?
The important point about the British Transport Police is that it was taking action to deal with terrorism, which could be connected with serious crime.
How many terrorists were caught?
I want to continue, if I may.
Many interesting points were made during the debate. I agree with various members that the Parliament was right to set up the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency. The cabinet secretary set out some of the work that the agency has done. However, we must also recognise where the agency can be improved.
Drug enforcement work and tackling other forms of serious and organised crime represent a global challenge. The SCDEA fosters and continually builds closer working relationships with Scottish and other domestic and foreign law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies. Indeed, as we heard from a number of members today, the increased ease and speed of international travel and trade means that it is likely that large numbers of organised crime groups in Scotland will continue to work with foreign criminals and operate on an international level.
The loss of Graeme Pearson was disappointing; all the members who mentioned him would agree with that. Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the situation is the reasons that he gave for his departure. In that regard, I want to expand on the point that Pauline McNeill touched on during her speech. At the time of his departure, Mr Pearson was quoted in the press as saying:
"The agency has never been fully staffed and I would say, on average, is about 10% down on what it should be."
He went on to say:
"some of the forces find it difficult to release staff to us because the pressures, at force level, encourage forces to keep them there."
That is yet more evidence of the lack of investment in law enforcement by the previous Administration. The current Administration must address that.
As we heard from Bill Aitken, the agency can no longer be viewed as a secondary part of Scottish law enforcement. It must be given the powers, finance and freedom that it requires to enable it to tackle serious crime in the way that we expect. The SCDEA must be put on an equal footing with Scotland's eight regional police forces. That is the only way in which we can build on its earlier successes.
We agree that serious organised crime is a major problem across Scotland. It is important to bring together all agencies to share information and work together to provide the best possible results in relation to tackling that problem. However, once criminals are caught and charged, we must ensure that the punishment fits the crime. Like Margaret Smith, we believe that a much more rigorous approach is needed to confiscation orders and the seizure of assets. It might be necessary to change the law so that, where there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that the assets of a convicted drug dealer were obtained by criminal activity, he or she should be required to prove that they have not been so obtained. In other words, in that situation, the onus of proof would be on the convicted criminal, not the Crown.
The debate has been useful. Serious crime is a growing problem and has the potential to have a devastating impact on Scotland and Scotland's communities. Scotland must play its part in tackling the problem and I urge the Government to take a lead.
At this time of year, it is traditional to bid each other a happy new year. I would like to take this opportunity to bid every criminal in Scotland a very unhappy new year as a result of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
There can be no doubt that serious organised crime causes misery in many of our communities—Margaret Curran made a powerful speech in which she raised those issues—but it is important to note that this is not only a justice issue and that almost any layer of government could be represented in the debate. As Bill Aitken said, organised crime has an effect on the health of our communities—so Nicola Sturgeon could be here to respond in relation to many of the challenges that face us.
Organised crime also affects the business opportunities that John Wilson mentioned in his speech. There are many hard-working men and women who want to go about their daily business and develop their businesses but cannot do so because of the Tam McGraws of this world—and the other individuals who have been referred to this afternoon. Different layers of government are affected, and it is important that we look at the many ways in which we can approach this serious issue.
The Labour amendment is clear and concise. In its one line, it says that we want to ensure that the resources are in place to ensure that we are seriously taking forward the message that there needs to be a cohesive approach to dealing with the serious issue that we are discussing.
Pauline McNeill raised the well-publicised case of James Stevenson, nicknamed "the Iceman". I am sure that if we were shown the details of the cost of the operation that apprehended him—not that I am requesting them—we would see that the costs of such operations are significant. The issue of resources is not just a political point that is being made here today; it needs to be dealt with seriously if we are to ensure that that kind of operation can be developed in the future.
There is no doubt that the partnership approach that the Crown Office and the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency have taken is to be commended, and I commend the current and previous Lord Advocates for showing leadership on that. A direct approach to confiscating assets has been taken, to ensure that the individuals concerned realise that it is inevitable that crime does not pay.
When we refer to partnership, we cannot evade the concerns about the relationship, which appears to be experiencing difficulty, between the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency and the Scottish Police Services Authority. I ask the cabinet secretary to show political leadership to deal with the tensions that are clear in both organisations. From time to time, organisations have conflicts.
I am happy to give Mr Martin that assurance. I hosted a meeting between Mr Pearson, Mervyn Rolfe—a man who is known to Labour members—and David Mulhern but, unfortunately, it did not proceed as I had hoped. I assure the member that I will meet Gordon Meldrum—I hope that that will happen shortly. As I have said, we retain the utmost faith in the SCDEA and the SPSA. There are issues, but I am sure that they can be resolved.
I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment. In all the evidence that I have seen and in the formation of both organisations, it is clear that the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency's operational responsibilities were to be independent. The tensions appear to relate to that, so any clarity from the Government about that would help.
The Labour Party has always put tackling serious crime at the forefront of its manifestos. Bill Butler made the case for introducing a serious and organised crime bill, on which we made a commitment in our recent manifesto. Will the cabinet secretary introduce such a bill at some point? I understand some of the concerns that he expressed about the current legislation and the need to work with the UK Government, but we will have to refresh our legislation to deal with the individuals who are involved, whose crimes are the most serious.
The Government has said on the record that it intends to introduce a criminal justice bill later this year. Our view is that what matters is not the number or volume of bills, but what they deliver. A criminal justice bill could cover low-level crime, antisocial behaviour and more serious matters. I am happy to give the member the undertaking that if we believe that particular measures that relate to serious and organised crime are essential, they will be delivered. The best way to do that will be not by multiplying the amount of legislation, but by having one all-encompassing act, but I give him the assurance.
This new year is going to be consensual. I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment.
I am sure that many of us agree that, despite the successes in recovering assets and the increase in recovered assets over the years, the £17 million that has been recovered since 2003 is a small fraction of the criminal assets throughout Scotland. The latest estimate of the value of crime throughout the United Kingdom is £18 billion per year, so we face a serious challenge.
Bill Aitken illustrated well the public's perception that, although we deal with the perpetrators of crime, their families still appear to benefit from their crimes. I would welcome a commitment from the Lord Advocate that more information will be provided in that respect, although I appreciate that the onus is on individuals to provide information about how they received their assets.
I ask members to support the amendments in the names of Pauline McNeill and Margaret Smith. Ensuring that 1,000 additional police officers are evident in our local communities will assist the serious process of dealing with serious criminals—Sandra White cannot dismiss that fact. For the record, we met our manifesto commitment to provide more than 1,400 additional police officers from 1999 to 2007. I hope that the current Government will do likewise and meet its promise to deliver 1,000 additional police officers.
The Lord Advocate (Elish Angiolini):
This has been an important debate on a significant issue for Scotland. Indeed, as Bill Aitken said, serious organised crime is possibly the major threat to the community in Scotland that we face in the context of criminality.
Chris Harvie made a pertinent point about the history of organised crime. There have been notorious criminals for centuries—he mentioned a fictional one—who have made profits from their activities and whose motivation has been to profit and gain status, power and influence over others. They have always taken great care to conceal their ill-gotten gains and ensure that there will be fruits to which they can return if they are caught. There is nothing new in what we have to deal with now.
There have always been some individuals who see crime as risky but highly profitable. They have learned and evolved with considerable cunning: they have found better ways to disguise their activities and their involvement in them. Bill Aitken referred to the shadowy figures that create and represent such a threat. We have the more florid, patent and obvious drugs barons who display their wealth fairly conspicuously in Scotland, but those in the higher echelons—the more discreet, professional, distant and remote shadowy figures—are the bankers and investors. They stay far away from the streets of Easterhouse and Margaret Curran's constituency. Over the next decade, they must be the target for criminal agencies in Scotland, the UK and Europe.
Criminal entrepreneurs—if we may call them that—who are involved in drug trafficking, money laundering, counterfeiting, fraud, embezzlement, extortion and related intimidatory violence and murder often run their organisations on innovative, high-tech business lines. Again, Bill Aitken nicely summarised matters. However, their business comes without the hassles of legitimate business.
I am sorry, Presiding Officer. I see you signalling.
It is all right. Someone was having a conversation behind you.
Margaret Smith talked about the economic nature of such enterprises. She was correct: employees come cheap in organised crime. There is violence, fear and sexual exploitation of employees and customers. Violence and fear can be used to intimidate employees and customers. There is no need to negotiate. If a partner does not come up to scratch, there is no need for a golden handshake—they can simply be murdered.
Many successful prosecutors have been dismayed over the years. Bill Aitken again nicely summarised the situation. Prosecutors work hard on a case and then watch a convicted drugs dealer begin his sentence with a broad grin and a cheery wave to his girlfriend as he goes from the dock into the cells. He knows that his lieutenants will look after the big house, the villa abroad, the convertible and the business until he returns.
For some, prison has been an inconvenience or an overhead as long as profits remained safe for their release. Even in prison, their continued status and power has allowed them to continue to run their business. The thin veneer of respectability and status that is gained by their wealth distorts the perceptions of the young in our community. Pauline McNeill accurately assessed the need for us to remove the aspirations of many people in our communities to mimic or become such role models because they are the only people who represent success in proximity to their own lives. No contrived respectability can disguise the deeply corrosive impact of such individuals and criminal enterprises in our local communities and across our economy.
Criminality is increasingly complex, diverse and global. In response, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has radically adapted to meet the challenge that has been presented. In 2006, we established the national casework division, which is a fairly bland title for a vital, new and dynamic unit of prosecutors in the department. The division brings together a multidisciplinary team of prosecutors and investigators who work to identify and confiscate the proceeds of crime and prepare and prosecute large and complex cases, such as major drugs-trafficking cases.
I welcome what the Lord Advocate said about the development of specialist prosecutors, but I hope that she will clarify the position on the Gartcosh crime campus, which will bring the agencies together. Will she tell the Parliament what the plans are?
Yes, indeed. I was coming to that. Pauline McNeill's point about the Gartcosh campus is well made. Indeed, it was also made by Margaret Smith, John Wilson and others. The campus is an important vision and it will be an important part of the development of the collaborative working that is taking place between the agencies. As I understand it, the funding is in place for Gartcosh. It is continuing, and this week, or very shortly, we will advertise for the design team that will take matters forward. The date for the completion of construction is 2011. Clearly, the project is part of the continuing process of the agencies working together and using their various skills not in silos but collaboratively so that they are used to best effect.
Pauline McNeill, Margaret Smith and Sandra White mentioned the case of James Stevenson. A number of cases in the past year have been tremendous successes in the fight against organised crime in Scotland. James Stevenson was described by the SCDEA as Scotland's number 1 target at the time. That description came from Graeme Pearson, whom many members mentioned during the debate. In passing, I add that he was an outstanding leader of the organisation and is to be congratulated on the vision and the dynamics that he brought to its development. I also congratulate Gordon Meldrum on his appointment, and I look forward to his working with our organisation.
Scotland's number 1 target pled guilty to laundering the million-pound proceeds of drug trafficking following a lengthy intelligence operation. Hundreds of thousands of pounds and dozens of luxury watches were recovered. Almost £100,000 had been invested in cars for use as private hire taxis. Many members, including Stuart McMillan, mentioned the importance of regulation of the private hire taxi industry. That will be an important part of the fight against organised crime in Scotland and I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's suggestion today that the Government will consider the matter.
Mr Stevenson was sentenced to 12 years and nine months, which is the longest sentence ever imposed in Scotland for money laundering. It is to be welcomed that the courts clearly take the matter seriously.
The cabinet secretary also mentioned the successful prosecution of the counterfeit currency gang led by Thomas McAnea, who was referred to as "Hologram Tam". The trial judge described the gang as
"a sophisticated operation at the top end of the scale of production and distribution."
The former director general of the SCDEA, Graeme Pearson, described the gang as
"the best of its kind in the UK."
Although I accept what Mr Martin said in his winding-up speech—that we are simply inching in on the huge profits that are to be made and that we are in our infancy in that battle—we are certainly up for the challenge and we are extending and innovating in our working practices. I hope that those early successes show that the agencies in Scotland are fighting and being successful in tackling some of the most conspicuous organised criminals in the country.
Members will also be aware of recent convictions that relate to some sinister murders. As sentencing is still to take place, I will not go into detail on the cases, but, again, I hope that the Parliament recognises the importance of those convictions as they tackle intimidatory violence that has a subtext of organised crime.
Margaret Curran gave a graphic and disturbing description of something that is commonplace in many constituencies—people who live with intimidation and who live in fear of their local drugs barons and those who create an atmosphere in which people are frightened of doing anything other than simply acquiescing in the conditions in which they subsist. It is therefore important that there is a clear message to those who wish to come into this country to proceed with organised crime that this is not a country in which to invest. It should be very clear to those who would be inclined to come to this country and invest in organised crime that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the police, customs and the SCDEA are all waiting for them. A celebrated gentleman at Glasgow airport has shown that those who wish to come to this country and create crime of whatever nature will not receive a warm welcome. Indeed, it has to be said that, while we are certainly open for business, as the First Minister has said, we are open only for legitimate business.
The debate has been successful in crystallising some of the new developments. In particular, the cabinet secretary mentioned the proposals to refresh the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and to use it more innovatively and consider other offences. The Solicitor General visited Canada this summer and has suggested an offence that relates to being involved in directing organised crime as an aggravation of any crime. That is a significant and successful offence in Canada.
Next week, I will meet the Attorney General for the UK and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland—I have met the Welsh authorities—to discuss what is happening in each of our jurisdictions and to ensure the best of co-operation within the UK and abroad. We have also participated in the International Association of Prosecutors and our international co-operation unit is working with 52 countries on providing assistance. Much is happening and there is much to be assured of.
Mr Aitken wondered about the onus of proof. I assure him that when a conviction is obtained under section 96 of the act, the onus shifts to the accused in the sense that they have to indicate what their past six years' income has been. However, there is no doubt that there is a need to look at how we can adjust those provisions to ensure that they can be put to best use so that we have the most effect on such difficult and complex cases.
Serious organised crime poses one of the greatest threats to the stability of our society and economy and the well-being of the people of Scotland. We remain determined to increase our efforts to tackle the issue effectively. Today, I am pleased to announce that I will appoint an additional four Crown counsel, bringing their number to its highest-ever level; we now have more than double the number of Crown counsel we had a decade ago.
In the light of all that has been discussed here today, I hope that the Parliament will welcome the strengthening of the cadre of our most senior prosecutors and that it will recognise the importance of continuing to support and resource this country's prosecution service. Day in and day out, our prosecutors face intimidation. They are tremendously brave and courageous in their work. They do it quietly and get on with it from day to day. Our investigators are the same. I hope that I can continue to rely on the support of this Parliament for the work and endeavours of the prosecution service and the agencies with whom we will work throughout the next year.