Serious Organised Crime
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2824, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on tackling serious organised crime and developing strategic partnerships.
We have had many debates in Parliament about crime—debates reflecting the real concerns of ordinary Scots and ordinary communities. Every crime must be taken seriously, but I want to focus on a specific threat, which is the threat that is posed by serious organised crime.
What do we mean by serious organised crime? We live in an increasingly global world. Markets now transcend national borders and multinational corporations are no longer constrained by geographical or political boundaries. Criminal organisations have adapted to that changing world and have evolved into far-reaching international networks that operate in many different countries and have many spheres of interest. Those organisations produce and supply the drugs that blight Scotland's communities and they are involved in people trafficking, customs crime and arms dealing. Those networks have a hand in criminal activity at each and every level, from the poppy fields in Afghanistan to street dealers in Aberdeen; from people-trafficking operations in eastern Europe to prostitution in the east end of Glasgow.
If we are to fight serious organised crime we must target explicitly those who preside over the criminal gangs that are responsible for that crime. We must go after the people who exploit others and who bring misery to our communities. They are the people who sit comfortably in front of their plasma-screen televisions while trusting members of the public have peddled to them bootleg electronic goods. They are the people who sit in designer apartments while the dealers prey on Scotland's most vulnerable communities. Serious organised crime funds the obscenely excessive lifestyle of the men and women at the top—a lifestyle that leads those organised criminals to believe that they can thumb their noses at the police and at the millions of hardworking Scots who play by the rules.
I state once again, here and now, that that is not acceptable. Our police and prosecution services will continue to do everything in their power to put those people behind bars, and we will not stop there. We will seize their ill-gotten gains and we will send out a clear and unequivocal message that whatever the quick return might be, in the long term, crime will never pay. That good work is already under way. In 2004-05, we seized or confiscated more than £3 million-worth of criminal assets. Many more cases are being pursued; another £8 million in realisable criminal assets were identified for potential seizure by the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency between April and October last year. The Solicitor General for Scotland will cover that in more detail later in the debate.
The main threat from serious organised crime continues to come from drugs trafficking. The SDEA is working with the Scottish police forces and other agencies to disrupt and arrest those who are involved in supply, so that we can stem the flow of drugs into our communities. They are having success: in 2003-04, more than 100kg of class A drugs were seized, with a street value of more than £11 million. The total for 2004-05 will be even higher. In just one of many examples, in 2004 a single network was dismantled, which led to the recovery of heroin that had a street value of more than £1.5 million. The four principal members of that network received combined sentences amounting to 73 years.
As well as disrupting those networks at the top level, we are tackling the drugs menace at the distribution end, through initiatives such as Crimestoppers Scotland's drug dealers don't care, do you? campaign. The campaign has so far resulted in 116 arrests and has been responsible for seizures of drugs worth over £133,000. I understand that on Monday, SDEA officers in Glasgow, acting on intelligence that they had received, seized class A drugs with a value of £550,000.
I welcome the news that the minister has been given. She may recall that I have previously suggested that the illegal drugs industry in Scotland is worth some £2 billion a year, based on there being 51,000 heroin addicts and English figures that suggest a cost of £35,000 a year per addict to feed their habits. Will the minister confirm what her view is of the size of the industry and whether, whatever figure she comes up with, given the amount of money that we are managing to seize there is a lot of distance yet to travel?
Without putting a figure on it, I agree with Stewart Stevenson that there is a lot of distance yet to travel, which is why I take the issue so seriously and partly why I wanted to have the debate. We need to acknowledge how well we have done, but we also need to acknowledge the continued threat from organised criminal networks and from the fact that they adapt and change over time and move into new areas. We need not only to keep up with that movement, but to be ahead of it.
Organised criminals have other interests that are less obvious than the drugs scene. They often use businesses that appear at face value to be legitimate to shield their illegal activities and launder their shameful profits. We have seen clear examples of that in Scotland in the problems that affect the private security industry. I am pleased that legislation is now in place to regulate that industry, which will help to fight against the unscrupulous criminal elements that have plagued it over the years.
Members have heard me say before that criminals do not care about national or international boundaries—unless, of course, one jurisdiction is seen to provide a safer haven than its neighbours. To retreat into parochialism and focus only on what happens in Scotland itself would be a terrible mistake, because co-operation across jurisdictions is of paramount importance. Such co-operation begins in Scotland.
I praise the excellent work of all our law enforcement agencies that are involved in tackling organised crime. Because of the close co-operation between the police and the SDEA, 200 police officers had been seconded to the SDEA by the end of March this year. That is the highest figure ever and has been made possible by the record funding that we are providing to keep police numbers at an all-time high. Together with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, we are committed to continuing the SDEA's role as Scotland's lead enforcement agency in tackling serious organised criminality. That is why we are working towards putting the SDEA on a firm statutory footing with new governance and simplified funding arrangements. I expect to bring proposals on that to Parliament later this year.
It is also crucial that we co-operate effectively at United Kingdom level. The serious organised crime agency will come into being on 1 April next year. It will draw together the existing National Criminal Intelligence Service, the immigration service's responsibilities on organised crime, HM Revenue and Customs's responsibilities for serious drug trafficking and the National Crime Squad for England and Wales.
Much of the success of the SDEA and police in tackling organised crime has been the result of their ability to co-operate effectively with other law enforcement agencies from throughout the UK and around the world. More co-operation will bring about more success. I stress that the introduction of SOCA will take nothing away from our distinctive Scottish policing structure; rather, it will enhance the capacity of Scotland and the UK to respond to international crime.
Our active role in the European Union is also providing clear benefits. The EU framework decisions that are being discussed on mutual recognition of measures that are taken by courts and law enforcement agencies in partner countries are important. The European arrest warrant is a significant development that will speed up the arrest and return of criminals who are wanted for prosecution or punishment. It is a huge improvement on what existed before, which was a particularly cumbersome system that was open to abuse by individuals who were determined to frustrate justice. Europol provides an impressive level of support to the SDEA and the Scottish forces, as it allows rapid exchanges of crucial intelligence between member states on a range of serious organised crime issues, while Eurojust assists with co-ordination, investigation and prosecution of cross-border crime and has improved co-operation between legal systems.
Working within Scotland and beyond, our law enforcement agencies are disrupting the activities of organised criminal gangs and are bringing real benefits to our communities. I am determined that we will take the fight against serious organised crime to the people who are responsible for it—the international criminal networks. That is what the decent majority of ordinary Scots expect. They rightly question why criminals should live comfortable lives that are funded by their illegal activities; I share their outrage and pledge that the Executive will do everything in its power to create a safer Scotland by bringing to justice anyone and everyone who makes a career out of peddling misery in our communities.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that tackling serious organised crime is key to a safer Scotland; recognises that criminal networks operate across local, national and international boundaries; commends the achievements of those responsible in Scotland for bringing to justice those engaged in serious organised crime; supports the Scottish Executive's actions to achieve speedy and efficient court processes, its efforts to ensure greater co-operation with European and international criminal justice agencies and its plans to strengthen the status of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency; commends the success of the Crown Office in recovering £5.4 million since the introduction of the Proceeds Of Crime Act 2002, and will continue to support the sustained efforts of all those involved in disrupting and destroying the criminal networks which profit from inflicting violence and misery on communities in Scotland.
The Scottish National Party fully endorses the Executive motion and the minister's comments. She is correct to raise such matters and it is proper for her to do so in her speech.
The world—not simply the economy, but society—has globalised. Crime, as well as labour and capital, is mobile and transnational. Crime is capable of stalking across many lands, so countries need to work together if they are to address it. We must accept that we live in a shrinking world and that crime is therefore much more transnational. Globalisation brings economic benefits and the benefit of international travel but, although we must recognise its fruits, it comes at a price and we must guard against that. A cheque card that is stolen from a Scot on holiday can easily be used for crime and one that is stolen to order in this country can be sent abroad to cause mayhem. A vehicle that is stolen in Scotland, to be put in a container and sent to eastern Europe or elsewhere, can be out the country before the owner has noticed its absence. Businesses and individuals receive e-mails from Nigeria and elsewhere that cause fraud, mayhem and severe loss.
The minister is correct that crime knows no boundaries. Whether we are talking about guns being imported from the Balkans, drugs being imported from Afghanistan or people being trafficked through eastern Europe or elsewhere, we need to accept that the world has globalised and that crime agencies must co-operate. We must also bear it in mind that no country is an island; all countries are interdependent. Even the most powerful nation in the world—the United States of America—must recognise that fact, and not simply because of the terror that manifested itself on 9/11, which showed the USA that it was not immune to circumstances that can ravage places elsewhere in the world, and that no matter how it seeks to secure its borders, there will be difficulties that it will be required to address.
The USA would do well to remember the words of Noam Chomsky—I note that the learned professor was over here recently—on cocaine trafficking. Despite the activities of America's special weapons and tactics teams, Food and Drug Administration, Drug Enforcement Administration and its military, cocaine still enters the USA from Colombia. However, 94 per cent or 95 per cent of the ingredients of the cocaine that is sold on the streets the United States of America are manufactured in the USA then exported to Colombia to be assembled with the basic powder and re-imported to the United States of America. Professor Chomsky made the point that the US authorities are unable to stop the cocaine being flown in and, rather than wage war on campesinos who make a small percentage of the ingredients of cocaine, they would be better to address the problems that exist in their own society. That shows that even the manufacture of cocaine is an international process that transcends countries. It is not simply that the war is in Afghanistan or the problem is in Colombia; the problem is as much in our country as it is those others and we need to work across the board to address that. As the minister pointed out, we need to accept that point in respect of a variety of matters, such as terrorism, fraud and people trafficking.
We must also accept that crime comes in a variety of shapes and forms. A man in a suit is as likely to perpetrate a crime as is a youth in a hooded top. Legislators elsewhere must take on board the fact that much serious crime is committed not by hoodies, but by hoods dressed in dapper Armani suits. Many years back, Woody Guthrie sang:
"Yes, as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen."
It is important that, in addressing crime, we bear it in mind that the problem is not simply a small element of youth, but serious and highly organised crime.
The SNP's amendment recognises the difference of Scottish society. We have to work internationally and transnationally, but we must realise that Scottish society is different and distinct. What works in metropolitan London and what is needed in metropolitan Paris is not necessarily appropriate for Scotland. Lothian and Borders police would tell members that its policing methods for the Cowgate are different from those for George Street and most certainly different from those for Lothian Road on a Friday night or any other night. What is needed in Paris, London or Chicago is vastly different from what is needed in Scotland; how a policeman in Thurso would act is, in many instances, vastly different from how a policeman in Tooting would act.
The SNP accepts that some things are universal—we must always be prepared to accept best practice, wherever it comes from. However, we must acknowledge that our society is different. We have a unique legal system; it might not be the best system in the world, but it is ours. We must be prepared to learn where that system needs to improve and we must recognise and address its faults, although it has served us well through centuries and will continue to do so. Our system has also been moulded and shaped to meet our society's requirements.
Our policing has a different culture. It is very much based upon communities and on policing going upwards. It is also based upon chief constables' being almost sacrosanct; apart from being accountable to the board that appointed them, chief constables are certainly not subject to political interference. We are anxious to ensure that what has served us well in the past should remain. We must ensure the independence of our chief constables and their decisions about what is right for their communities, subject to discussion with the democratically elected boards.
We must also ensure that our law is paramount and that our legal system prevails. Clearly, we must be prepared to co-operate not just with extra-national jurisidictions but with the jurisdictions elsewhere in the United Kingdom. However, as I say, we must always bear it in mind that our legal system is unique and distinct because it is for our distinct and unique society. It has served us well and it will have to develop and evolve and take on board ideas from other nations, but it must be paramount. We must ensure that new agencies and structures do not try to force the proverbial square peg into a round hole and that they allow our system to develop as best suits our society and the way it wants to address a global phenomenon.
I move amendment S2M-2824.1, to insert at end:
"notes, however, that, whilst co-operation with other bodies both elsewhere in the United Kingdom and abroad is vital, Scotland has a unique legal system and a distinctive policing culture that is community-based and independent from political interference and therefore that the Scottish legal system and Scottish Law Officers must always be responsible for, and in control of, operations in Scotland and the representation of Scottish views and needs abroad."
There is a lot in what the minister has outlined today that is commendable; Conservatives welcome the efforts to seize the ill-gotten gains of criminals and plough them back into the communities that have been damaged. Similarly, we welcome the Executive's efforts to work with European and international criminal justice agencies to catch more big-time criminals. We have no difficulty in supporting those aspects of the Executive's motion.
I am also pleased that the minister is talking about strengthening the SDEA. A good first step would be to rename that organisation more accurately. I wonder how many members of the public have any idea that the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency deals with much more than drugs; indeed, it deals with some of the most serious crime in Scotland. Perhaps its previous name—the Scottish Crime Squad—was more fitting.
That technicality aside, I remain worried about the impact on the SDEA of the new serious organised crime agency; I think that Kenny MacAskill alluded to that. I have one or two questions for the minister that I hope will be addressed later on in the debate. I am still not clear how the SDEA is expected to interact with the new body, because the new body will also be present in Scotland. I am also interested to ascertain whether the minister anticipates having regular meetings with the Home Office to ensure that she and her colleagues are not left out in the cold.
Another way in which we should clamp down on criminals and on drugs entering the country is by improving policing at our borders. I notice that under Labour only 11 of Britain's 35 main ports are manned 24 hours a day. My party would establish 24-hour security at Britain's major ports of entry and we would establish a British border control police force whose sole job would be to secure Britain's borders. There is anxiety about security of entry at the moment, and there are issues that impinge on the sort of serious crime to which the minister referred.
On a point of clarification, is the Conservative party proposing that there be checks at every port of entry in the United Kingdom? That is clearly not what their UK spokesman said during the election campaign.
No—I said the major ports of entry. I also said that there would be a British border control police force to enforce security at our borders.
Serious and organised crime cannot be considered in isolation from the everyday criminal activity that occurs in too many of our Scottish communities. The final clause of the Executive's motion states that it
"will continue to support the sustained efforts of all those involved in disrupting and destroying the criminal networks".
Surely one of the best ways of doing that is to increase police presence in our streets. Visible policing does not just deter and detect crime; putting police back in our communities would restore trust between the police and the people whom they serve, which would encourage individuals to come forward when they have useful information.
The minister mentioned Crimestoppers. Prior to 2003, I remember supporting that pilot scheme in my area because it was highly effective. It also demonstrated that there is public good will out there to help with nailing criminals.
As New York has demonstrated—I have mentioned this many times—concentration or emphasis on community policing is not unique. A similar success story occurred in Massachusetts—a highly industrialised area that suffered heavily from economic deprivation, drug crime and gangland activity. The city of Lowell was perceived to be dangerous and unwelcoming, so Superintendent Edward Davis decided to follow the New York example. The result was a reduction in crime. In 2001, Superintendent Davis made a speech to the Institute of Economic Affairs during which he explained the reasons for his success as follows:
"We don't solve crime because we are smart or scientifically astute. We solve most crimes because someone tells us who did it."
Those are wise words and the Executive could do with learning from them.
I understand Miss Goldie's continued interest in what is happening in New York and she will, from my comments, be aware of what I learned on my visit there. Does she accept that one of the ways in which the police and other authorities in New York have tried to tackle their problems is not necessarily by seeking to increase the number of custodial penalties but to have quick, visible and effective community reparation that communities are part of?
I do not think that there is an issue between the minister and me. I emphasise that the key seems to be the presence of police in communities where they can engage with the public. How we thereafter incorporate a raft of sanctions or solutions is consequential.
An increased police presence in our communities would do a lot to reconsolidate the public's confidence and willingness to assist in solving crime. If it remains easy for serious offenders—the Mr Bigs—to get bail, many witnesses will be too scared to come forward. That is the sad reality. I suggest that the Executive's attitude to fighting crime is a top-down approach: solve the big crimes, catch Mr Big, get the headlines and the little crimes might not be noticed. I disagree with that approach. We need a bottom-up approach, which I suppose is the justice equivalent of "look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves". Only if we follow that path will we be able to cut crime.
That is why my party believes in more accountable local policing. When we proposed our idea that the convener of the police should be locally elected, Mr Henry was very dismissive. His colleague Mr McNeil in Inverclyde was not quite so dismissive for reasons that I fully understand. There is a feeling of disengagement between communities and the overall policing strategy.
It is little comfort to the individual who is trapped in a crime-ravaged community that big-time dealers and persistent criminals are the guys who are clamped down on. As Superintendent Davis suggested, the best way to catch the big guys is for someone to pass to the police the information that is needed. In the current climate of fear of criminals and distrust of the justice system, that will not happen.
I move amendment S2M-2824.2, to leave out from "the Scottish Executive's" to end and insert:
"actions which will create an efficient court process; backs the Scottish Executive's efforts to ensure greater co-operation with European and international criminal justice agencies; believes that the status of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency should be strengthened and therefore hopes that it will not be undermined by the creation of the Serious Organised Crime Agency; commends the success of the Crown Office in recovering £5.4 million since the introduction of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, continues to support the sustained efforts of all those involved in disrupting and destroying the criminal networks which profit from inflicting violence and misery on communities in Scotland, but believes that crime will continue to blight too many Scottish communities until there is an increased police presence on our streets coupled with a zero-tolerant attitude to crime."
There is a lot of common ground this morning, particularly in analysis of the problem. We live in a United Kingdom—to the chagrin of my SNP colleagues—and in an increasingly interdependent world. Of course, that brings great benefit, as Mr MacAskill said. Communications are easier, travel is quicker, and the world seems to be smaller. With all the benefits that that brings, there are those who take advantage of it; serious and organised crime knows no borders. That means that for the Scottish Parliament, a balance is required between the need to ensure that we have legislation in Scotland that suits our circumstances, and the cross-border interest in issues such as immigration, organised crime and customs. Although we make decisions that might well differ from those taken south of the border, it would be ludicrous to have divisions and discrepancies. Criminals who operate across the UK will be the first to look for gaps in co-operation, fault lines in legislation or loopholes in police powers. A criminal organisation that is based in Glasgow or elsewhere in Scotland will set itself no boundaries round the globe, never mind within the UK. Increasingly, crime has an international dimension.
I will cover a matter on which Liberal Democrats are in absolute agreement with Labour coalition colleagues, and then I will touch on an area where there is disagreement. The Scottish Parliament considered the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, which the Westminster Government was taking through the UK Parliament. I had hoped that a service level agreement would be drawn up on the functions that are to be carried out by the SDEA as an agency for the serious organised crime agency.
In my view, if the relationship between SOCA, the police, the SDEA and ministers is to be effective, we will need a transparent and accountable relationship between the Scottish ministers and SOCA's sponsor department, the Home Office. I know that there has been progress in that area.
I am pleased that we are working towards a first in the UK, with a law-enforcement campus at Gartcosh in North Lanarkshire. The innovative plans for that campus aim to bring together the SDEA and a number of partner agencies. That represents a logical progression to the SDEA's existing task-force approach to tackling serious organised crime.
Does Mr Purvis agree that it is important for the relationship between politicians and law enforcement that policy be set by politicians, while all operational matters should be left to the law enforcers?
That is, of course, the overall framework, but the member will be fully aware of section 11 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, which allows ministers to intervene in police matters if
"it appears … to be expedient in the interests of public safety or order that any police force should be reinforced or should receive other assistance".
In that context, I agree with Stewart Stevenson.
There is a clear separation between Labour and the Liberal Democrats on one important subject. The former Home Secretary, Mr Blunkett, launched the UK Government's identity card scheme in 2003 with this promise:
"An ID card scheme will help tackle the crime and serious issues facing the UK, particularly illegal working, immigration abuse, ID fraud, terrorism and organised crime."
Among the frequently asked questions on the Home Office's website is:
"Won't an identity card be attractive to fraudsters and organised criminals?"
The answer is:
"Yes just as current identity documents are. This is why we will have strengthened identity checking procedures, biometrics and improved physical security measures both for existing identity documents and for identity cards."
The ID cards in themselves will not be effective without additional physical security measures, as the Home Office has said. It is certain that the massive information technology project that would be required, which would take years to plan and more years to deliver, would need to cover millions of people, would cost billions of pounds and would be technologically out of date even before it came into operation.
One technology expert, Peter Dorrington, who is head of fraud at the private software company, SAS Institute, a company that has worked with UK police forces, the UK Government, blue-chip companies around the world and the United States federal Government, was highly sceptical of the cards. He said:
"These are going to be incredibly attractive to organised crime groups. If you have one of these, and know that banks and governments are going to take them as a trusted form of identification, then the potential to commit fraud is massive. If a criminal can successfully obtain or generate a smart card with stolen or bogus data the world becomes their oyster.
What this means is that the value of these cards on the black market will be many times greater than the current passport. Typically a passport will go for anywhere between £500 and £5,000 on the black market. These ID cards will go for considerably more than that."
The Liberal Democrats are very pleased with the progress that we are making in Scotland to tackle serious and organised crime and with the development of strategic partnerships, which is already producing results. In March this year, half a million pounds of heroin was seized at Waverley station. Let us not be distracted, however, by an illiberal, expensive, ineffective and potentially dangerous ID card scheme.
The Solicitor General for Scotland (Mrs Elish Angiolini):
In February this year, the Lord Advocate and I outlined to Parliament the steps that had been taken by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to modernise and reform. That reform has profoundly affected how we in the prosecution service tackle the menace of serious organised crime and our vision for the future development of our role in that respect.
The prosecution of serious organised crime has, in accordance with our strategic plan, been given priority by area procurators fiscal, who are working closely with colleagues from the SDEA and the Scottish police forces in a partnership approach, which is proving ever more effective. In recent years, the COPFS has been responsible for the successful prosecution of a significant number of major drugs cases and other serious crime cases in the High Court. That has demonstrated the effectiveness of the close working relationship that has developed, and also the greater and earlier role of Crown counsel in the investigation and prosecution of those cases.
Cathy Jamieson has already given an example of the successful prosecution of high-level drug dealers, and there are many more, with the conduct in question sometimes involving serious violence and murder as well as drugs. The prosecution service in Scotland will continue to work closely with the SDEA and colleagues from the police and other investigative agencies to give such cases priority and to ensure that those involved in the most serious organised crimes are brought to justice.
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has ensured that tackling serious crime is achieved not only through the traditional, important route of prosecution, but also through a number of other measures following the creation of the Crown Office's financial crime and civil recovery units. Among other roles, the financial crime unit is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of money laundering offences. Money laundering is the process by which the proceeds of crime are converted by criminals into assets that appear to have a legitimate origin, so that they can be retained permanently or recycled into further criminal enterprises.
The number of money laundering cases reported to the Crown Office continues to rise. Although a number of those cases are still being investigated, I am pleased to report that the first conviction for a money laundering offence under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was secured earlier this year, and that two further cases have now been indicted in the High Court, and will proceed shortly. About 40 more active money laundering investigations are under way, which gives some indication of the extent of what are frequently complex, detailed and sophisticated investigations. The new powers help us explore the full extent of the trails that organised crime gangs can lay down to mask their ill-gotten gains. We are committed to using the 2002 act to its full effect to strike at those who prevail at organised crime, but who are far removed from the hands-on offenders.
It is vital to that success that we maintain effective working relationships with the other agencies in the criminal justice system. That is the foundation upon which the tackling of serious organised crime must be built. The COPFS now works very closely with all its criminal justice partners, and its very effective relationships with the SDEA, the main police forces and HM Revenue and Customs continue to develop. It has been aided in that process by the appointment of five seconded officers from law enforcement agencies to Crown Office units, as well as a senior procurator fiscal being seconded to HM Revenue and Customs. That has brought about a much better understanding of each agency involved, and has contributed greatly to the identification and dissemination of best practice.
We welcome the opportunity to work closely with the new serious organised crime agency as it moves towards full operational status next April. Kenny MacAskill raised the matter of SOCA's accountability and how it will operate in the context of the distinct Scottish legal system. I can assure Kenny MacAskill that section 22 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 makes explicit provision to ensure accountability to the Lord Advocate.
Given the fact that 99.995 per cent of transactions, by value, are electronic and do not involve physical money, can the Solicitor General tell us what computer skills and resources are available to her and the prosecution service to deal with crime in the major areas where money moves through the system?
The Solicitor General for Scotland:
The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provides opportunities to deploy information from financial institutions and the computer networks to which they have access. Sophisticated skills are being developed in the SDEA, and forensic accountants work with and within the Crown Office's financial crime unit. IT very much forms a part of that process. As criminals work in a complex and sophisticated way, we are required to equip ourselves with innovative, creative skills to deal with that. I can assure the Parliament that that is what we are about.
Another major objective is to recover the assets of those who have engaged in criminal activities. The COPFS is making good use of the new powers under the 2002 act. Asset confiscation takes the proceeds of crime out of circulation and ensures that offenders do not have access to funds with which to resume their criminal activities. Organised crime is motivated by greed and the desire for power. Recovering assets is therefore a toxic weapon in demotivating would-be leaders and in diminishing their status in the community. The powers that are now available for confiscation enable the investigation of financial backgrounds through a variety of investigative orders, the restraint of assets and the confiscation of assets by court order.
During the financial year 2004-05, the financial crime unit obtained 189 orders restraining assets with a value of £37,859,489. That shows that, even in the earlier stages of the implementation of the new legislation, we mean very serious business in tackling this major problem. The number of orders obtained rose by 67 per cent on the previous year, and the total value of assets restrained rose from £9,364,913.
The restraint of assets disrupts activity because the assets are not available pending the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases, including cases that involve money laundering. Assets that have been restrained include duplex penthouse flats, holiday complexes in the United States of America, bank accounts, insurance policies and cruise deposits as well as collections of whisky and sophisticated, diamond-encrusted watches.
In the first month of the present financial year, the number of restraint orders granted continued to rise and it is anticipated that more than 250 orders will be obtained in the coming year. That is an indication of the work that is in the pipeline, which will eventually lead to confiscation proceedings in cases in which a criminal conviction is secured. However, that is not the end of the story. Restraint action is not restricted to those who profit from the trafficking of controlled drugs. The financial crime unit has raised proceedings against those who are alleged to be engaged in other aspects of serious organised crime, including people trafficking, money laundering, brothel keeping and extortion as well as other types of offences in which criminals are motivated by financial gain.
Although restraint can have an impact on those who seek to live on the proceeds of their criminal activity, it is the confiscation of assets and their subsequent redistribution that will ultimately have the greatest impact as they are removed from the criminal and realised for the public good.
The Solicitor General for Scotland:
I will not take an intervention because I want to report further developments to Parliament.
I can inform Parliament that the total amount of money that has been recovered by confiscation orders is approaching £3 million. I have every confidence that that figure will continue to grow as the financial crime unit works with other agencies, particularly the SDEA, to ensure that assets are confiscated at the end of restraint periods.
Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002—POCA—came into force in February 2003. It ensures that criminals do not hold on to what they have gained unlawfully, not only in criminal cases in which we secure convictions, but in cases in which it is not possible to prove involvement in a specific crime. Although the legislation is still in its early days, I am pleased to advise Parliament that, so far, the courts have granted five final recovery orders and 16 interim administration orders in cases in which court proceedings are still under way. The total value of the assets that have been realised through recovery orders thus far is nearly £1 million and there is a sustained increase in the area. To illustrate that, I point out that since the Lord Advocate spoke to the Parliament about our reforms three months ago, another £700,000 worth of assets have been recovered. That demonstrates that the powers are beginning to bite, and much more work is under way. The total number of cases that are referred to the civil recovery unit continues to increase: it has accepted 30 cases for civil recovery in the financial year 2004-05, which represents an increase of more than 50 per cent on last year.
The civil recovery unit is responsible for pursuing cases in which there has been a cash seizure. The provisions in the 2002 act enable the seizure of cash where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it is recoverable property or that it is intended for use in unlawful conduct. The court can then be asked to forfeit the money. In many cases, money is found in suitcases or plastic bags in the boots of cars but we are unable to secure criminal convictions in relation to possession. Almost £1.5 million has been forfeited by the courts since the powers became available. Cash seizure and civil recovery proper has enabled the civil recovery unit permanently to take out of circulation nearly £2.5 million in just over two years. It is important to note that those sums would not have been recoverable before the introduction of the powers in POCA.
Serious and organised crime is very much an international business. As Mr MacAskill and Annabel Goldie recognised earlier in the debate, criminals frequently move their activities and assets across borders. However, the increasing level of co-operation between states and the greater use by law enforcement agencies of the specialist networks and new powers are ensuring that the challenges that are posed by international criminals are being addressed. The international co-operation unit at the Crown Office continues to play a key role in facilitating requests to and from Scotland for mutual legal assistance. In the year ending 31 March 2005, the number of extradition and mutual legal assistance requests that were dealt with was more than 50 per cent higher than in the previous year. With the implementation throughout Europe of the European arrest warrant we can expect the figures to rise further in the coming year.
Cathy Jamieson referred to Eurojust and its role. It enables speedy co-ordination of cross-border investigations into international crime. Scotland has its own representative, who is seconded from the COPFS and who works at Eurojust as assistant to the United Kingdom national member. The presence of Scottish lawyers in Europe is crucial as they emphasise the distinct Scottish legal system. Also, Crown Office staff have been seconded to posts in Brussels and Italy in the past two years, which underscores the key role that we in Scotland wish to play in the fight against international crime. I assure the Parliament that in the International Association of Prosecutors there is clear recognition of Scotland's distinct legal system and acknowledgement of how smoothly co-operative actions usually run.
I am sure that members appreciate that in Scotland we are doing a great deal to battle the menace of serious crime. We have a long way to go and we are not complacent about the matter, but wherever criminals try to hide themselves and their criminal profits, they are pursued through our use of the wide range of powers that we now have. There is energy and dedication within the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and elsewhere in the criminal justice system to ensure that, as far as possible, we bring those people to justice.
It has been said that the law should not pretend to punish everything that is dishonest because that would seriously interfere with big business. I say that in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek way not because it is entirely wrong, but because I believe that it is our responsibility to interfere in crime wherever it occurs. What might be more accurate is my belief—which appears to be contrary to the view of the Minister for Justice, given what she said earlier—that we cannot consider the view that crime does not pay to be even remotely true. Crime is one of the biggest businesses in the world today and we must interfere with it. I am glad that the Scottish Executive recognises that and has set itself the task of confronting that reality. Organised crime is truly global and we must look beyond our borders if we are to tackle it effectively.
During the recent general election campaign there was a great deal of discussion on immigration. Had there been a reasoned debate on the matter there is much that could have been addressed, but this morning we have an opportunity to consider one dimension of the immigration debate. Migration from disadvantaged or troubled areas of the world to more stable and affluent countries is a multifaceted global phenomenon and it creates great opportunities for serious and organised criminal involvement. Organised immigration crime comprises both people smuggling and human trafficking; the distinction between the two is that in the case of human trafficking the intention behind the facilitation is to exploit the migrants when they reach their destination.
The indications are that human trafficking takes place on a much smaller scale than people smuggling, but the nature of human trafficking is such that it is harder to identify. It is clear that human trafficking relies on the frequent use of intimidation and violence, which arguably makes it the more acute threat and one that Scotland's criminal justice system must make a priority. Scotland is not immune to the problem, so it must be tackled by the strategic partnerships to which the motion refers. Criminals involved in serious and organised crime, whether they trade in people, drugs or other commodities, are adept at exploiting weaknesses in the system. Such criminals show flexibility and speed in responding to the efforts of law enforcement officers to combat their crime and in countering improved detection capabilities.
I am particularly concerned that traffickers often recruit migrants specifically into the vice trade. That usually involves deception and the exploitation of the lack of opportunities that are open to women in the source countries. The use of violence to control both trafficked prostitutes and sweatshop labourers is widespread and must cause us great concern. In the case of women who are trafficked for prostitution there are extreme forms of coercion, which usually involve physical abuse and rape by the traffickers. Violence is likely to be present from the point at which the woman begins working as a prostitute and most victims are forced to become addicted to hard drugs such as heroin. They become dependent on both the drugs and the trafficker. Victims of trafficking are a particular concern because they continue to be exploited by serious and organised criminals once they are in Scotland. I hope that the minister will pay particular attention to the problem.
Many of the serious and organised criminals who are involved in immigration crime are also involved in other serious and organised criminal activities, such as class A drug trafficking. There is evidence of illegal immigrants being used by serious and organised criminals to facilitate other serious and organised crimes—for example, they are used as drugs couriers. Serious and organised criminals also use illegal immigrants to commit various types of organised low-level crime when they arrive in the destination country. When that happens in Scotland, it shows us how a global problem becomes a local issue. I am glad that the ministers gave a strong indication this morning that they intend to tackle the problem.
In any debate on crime, we must have a sense of perspective about what needs to be done and what can be done. From what we have heard this morning, the ministers have got that balance right and I wish them well with their efforts in tackling the problem.
I am sure that we all agree that we owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women who work in the eight Scottish police forces, the SDEA, HM Revenue and Customs, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the court system and other law enforcement agencies. They are in the front line of the fight against serious and organised crime.
Since its launch in June 2000, the SDEA has achieved considerable success in the fight against drugs. In its report for 2003-04, the SDEA said that since its launch its efforts had resulted in the arrest of 736 people, the seizure of more than 1,300kg of class A drugs and of more than 7,700kg of class B drugs and 333 disruptions to criminal networks. I am sure that we all welcome those achievements.
The SDEA's approach to serious and organised crime is increasingly founded on the implementation of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The seizure of £5.4 million as outlined in the Executive's motion is welcome but, as I am sure that we all realise, that is only the tip of a very large iceberg. I wish Crown Office staff well in their attempts to seize the maximum amount from criminals that they can. However, I understand that the amount that can be retained in Scotland is still capped. That cap should be lifted and all money and assets that are seized here should be retained and used in Scotland.
Hitting criminals where it hurts is an extremely important development in tackling serious crime and in showing the public that the phrase, "Crime doesn't pay" will become reality. Justice must be seen to be done by the communities that are most affected by the criminals.
Earlier this year, we debated a Sewel motion to allow Westminster to legislate for us in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. All but the Executive parties opposed that motion for several reasons. One reason for opposing the bill was that the Parliament should defend the separate Scottish legal system, which other legal systems should not ride roughshod over.
We agree absolutely that close cross-border co-operation is needed between different legal jurisdictions in the UK, but that applies equally to legal systems outwith the UK. Whether the justice services of England, Wales and Northern Ireland or of the Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands and Belgium are involved, close co-operation is vital. However, it is not necessary or desirable to create overarching bodies that overrule those individual and separate legal systems.
Will the member give one tangible example of a system that was ridden roughshod over?
It is inconceivable that Ireland or Holland would allow a different legal system to rule over their legal systems, yet the creation of a so-called UK supreme court and a UK federal bureau of investigation will do just that here. Those are two tangible examples.
Ensuring public safety is the number 1 priority of any Government and that duty requires Governments to tackle serious crime. However, I disagree with the Government in London when it tells us that introducing identity cards will tackle serious crime and terrorism. It is clear that ID cards do not work. Most countries of continental Europe have ID cards, but they suffer from serious and organised crime at an equivalent level to us or at an even higher level.
Spain has ID cards, but they did not prevent the terrible bombings in Madrid. ID cards have not stopped Spain's problems with drug trafficking from north Africa. Does anyone honestly believe that ID cards will deter serious criminal gangs from going about their business? I certainly do not think so. If ID cards are such a useful tool, why does the USA—the most security-conscious country in the world after 9/11—not wish to introduce them? That is because it knows that ID cards do not work.
Adequate resources are crucial in the fight against serious crime and our police and other arms of the justice system could do with more resources to assist them in their work. That is why it is nothing short of supreme folly to spend billions on ID cards instead of where that money is most needed. We should spend that money on putting more police on the streets to protect the communities that are suffering from those crimes. We should invest in, rather than cut, organisations such as the customs and excise service.
We agree that we need to prioritise the tackling of serious and organised crime, but that does not mean trampling over our unique legal system, creating a UK FBI or wasting billions on ID cards.
One of the most important strategic decisions that our Labour Government in Westminster and our Scottish Executive have made is to recognise that highly organised crime has changed. In doing so, they have encouraged the establishment of law agencies and the passing of laws that give us the tools to fight organised and serious crime.
The freedom of movement of people, capital and goods and the use of modern-day technology have taken crime to a level that we can barely imagine. Our most notorious criminals are no longer local. They are different. They are devious and sometimes very clever people who move from country to country. Serious crime operates transnationally.
That is why the establishment of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency was important and why it should be strengthened, as the motion and one amendment say. I, too, support the proposal to move to Gartcosh, provided that the agency's role is strengthened in the operation. If Government departments should be value for money, we have heard that the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency and our Crown Office, among others, have shown that they are delivering.
For a small country, Scotland has done extremely well in taking serious and organised crime seriously. We are the largest user of Europol and we have a strong voice on the European and international stages. Crucially, we have shown professionalism in the use of covert intelligence methods that has brought the nation credibility. We have standing in the world on that. We are a serious player in understanding the importance and the nature of organised crime and we have shown that we will take bold steps in our laws, such as the adoption of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, despite comments that that act might be contrary to the European convention on human rights. The Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill, which has passed stage 2 and will soon be discussed at stage 3, also shows the type of law that we are prepared to put in place.
The national hi-tech crime unit, which is part of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, is in its infancy but has already shown that it has the capability and the covert ability to review the trafficking of children through the internet and links to child abuse that is happening and causing worry in Scotland. Recently, a 54-year-old man was arrested for indecent exposure and a contravention of section 6 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 for grooming-type activity towards girls under 16. That arrest was the result of a task force operation by that unit.
All the evidence suggests that Scotland must build on its successes. Opting out of the international scene is not a choice for Scotland; we can only go forwards. I will advance two reasons for continuing to support the SDEA's work. We know that serious crime is operating in a new dimension. It is important to understand the impact of organised crime on legitimate business. Illegitimate business threatens our legitimate businesses, so that is one reason why the agency is important. Criminals can deliver a deal in one country, move assets to another country and even involve a third country or another continent. That is the behaviour to which we refer. We must send the message to lower-level criminals that we are capable of challenging the highest-level criminals, that we will remove their assets and that we will jail them, so lower-level criminals should not aspire to such behaviour.
Michael McMahon referred to people trafficking. The United Nations estimates that 4 million people are smuggled worldwide for trafficking and slavery. In Italy, 200 trials are being held for people trafficking. When women are bonded to a slave master, their families would be harmed if those women reported the crime to the police.
If ever we need to be reminded of the scourge of drug misuse in our communities, we can read yet another study, which the University of Glasgow published this week. The study shows that 62 per cent of women drug users have been physically abused.
It is important for us as politicians to talk about the capabilities, the laws and what we must do transnationally, but we must always make it clear why we put resources in place. The communities that we represent need law enforcement as well as other parts of the strategy to make the system truly work.
I support the Executive's motion. I also support 99 per cent of the SNP's amendment and I am not sure what the difference is. Stewart Maxwell talked about protecting our legal system, but I fail to understand the relevant concern. Even the Tory motion contains little with which I would disagree. Why can we not just all agree that there is nothing wrong with the Executive's position? Given the importance of the issue, we should all just get behind the Executive motion.
The closing section of the Executive's motion reads:
"and will continue to support the sustained efforts of all those involved in disrupting and destroying the criminal networks which profit from inflicting violence and misery on communities in Scotland."
That laudable sentiment, with which we can all agree, brings to my mind the comments on the regulation of the private security industry that the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents submitted to the Justice 2 Committee during its consideration of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. Although the association welcomed the bill, its submission stated:
"Nevertheless, ASPS wishes to emphasise again the Licensing Authority's need to take into account legitimate intelligence information/non-conviction data in assessing an individual's fitness to hold a licence."
Members will know that the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 belatedly extended the provisions of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to Scotland, but they should be under no illusion as to the scope of the dubious activities that are entered into by some private security firms.
My interest in the regulation and control of the rogue element within private security companies dates back over 10 years to when, as a councillor on Renfrew District Council, I chaired the inquiry into the activities of a private security company that was established and maintained by public money. In considering the company's performance on council contracts—which I will leave to one side for the minute—it became clear that the company had secured more than £1 million in housing contracts without proper tendering procedures. However, the real eye-opener was the fact that the company and some of its associates engaged in activities such as employing workers who were on state benefit, creating phantom employees for whom wages were drawn in cash and fabricating time sheets to cover work that was said to have been carried out by phantom employees. I witnessed how one guy used different signatures—apparently he had three—depending on who filled out his time sheet for him. The council paid an hourly rate for work that was never done, but that did not seem to matter because sites went on fire or were vandalised only if people did not agree to the provision of security in the first instance. Of course, with that level of corruption, the local drugs dealers were fully involved, peddling their wares from selected sites.
Although the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 has now emphasised the need for integration and co-operation throughout the UK and beyond, at that stage in time the reality was somewhat different. The company to which I refer operated with a degree of impunity that one might call immunity. The Department of Health and Social Security knew about the cash-in-hand payments, but it took no action. The Inland Revenue knew about the cash withdrawals to pay the wages of the phantom workers, but it took no action. The police knew of the involvement of the local drug dealers but took no action. Despite an horrendous report from the liquidators that pinpointed criminal activity and spelled out the fact in words of one syllable, no one was ever charged, far less convicted. The firm enjoyed protection all the way to the top.
Although the Security Industry Authority has powers that help it to combat and exclude some unsavoury individuals from participating in parts of the private security business, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that all the angles have been covered. The fear culture continues. In certain areas, pressure is exerted on some businesses and individuals, especially builders, to employ a private security firm. Many companies choose to pay. They are secure in the knowledge that they are paying through the nose, but they know for a certainty that their site will be trashed or be the location of the next unfortunate fire if they do not pay. Such additional costs to business could rightly be termed extortion. In addition, there exist cartels of private security firms that carve up some areas of our cities to operate monopolies. They have no need to guard any site; the sign outside does that job. Unfortunately, some firms are still able to use arm's-length companies to reward their criminal cronies for services.
The need to take into account legitimate intelligence and non-conviction data should not be limited to private security firms but should also apply to other licensed activities. Local authorities are ill-equipped to root out illegal activities in the trades that they are required to license. Instead, they rely on convictions and formal police objections. As MSPs, how many of us have been approached with reports that some taxi companies, or individuals who are involved in that trade, deal in drugs? I do not say that every individual or company in the taxi or private-hire business is involved in dealing drugs, as that would be absurd. There are many good operators, owners and drivers out there, but they too know the score. It is fair to say that there is significant concern that individuals with close connections to criminal elements are building up significant interest in the taxi and private-hire business. In some areas, they also control local bus services. They dictate when services stop running and when those who live in some of our most deprived areas will need a taxi if they are to venture out.
Ill-gotten gains have been laundered through legitimate businesses and have been used to acquire and expand legitimate operations. If we are to take seriously the sentiment that is expressed in the latter part of the Executive's motion, perhaps those issues require further investigation and real partnership working.
The Minister for Justice was right to emphasise that measures to tackle organised crime are central to our aim, which is shared by members from all parties, of creating a safer Scotland in which communities are not bedevilled by drug dealing, forgery, prostitution, money laundering and small-arms trading. It is up to this Parliament, acting in a co-ordinated fashion both with our Westminster counterparts and with European agencies, to ensure that the police and law enforcement agencies are effectively equipped to meet an increasingly sophisticated international underworld.
Organised criminal gangs are, basically, illegitimate businesses that exist for the sole reason of making large sums of money. They are prepared to go to extreme lengths—up to and including corruption, intimidation and extreme violence—to protect their rackets and to ensure that their businesses thrive and prosper. To protect their investments, such organisations have adopted a range of increasingly sophisticated measures, including modern counter-surveillance techniques and the elaborate money laundering arrangements to which members have referred. Therefore, it is right and proper that Government provides its police and law enforcement agencies with the resources and legislative framework to allow them to deal with organised criminal gangs and to prevent the squalor, despair and death that such gangs cause in all our communities.
As members have mentioned, serious problems are associated with drugs trafficking. For example, the UK's crack and heroin markets are estimated to gross £3 billion per annum. People who become addicted to those drugs turn to crime to pay for their habit. In effect, every £1 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 individuals who are trapped in that twilight world is incalculable.
Our Government and Parliament have recognised the need for new and imaginative ways of meeting that serious challenge. For instance, I believe that we were correct to establish the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. Since its creation in April 2001, the agency has worked in close co-operation with police forces across the UK, with HM Customs and Excise and with our partners in Europe to seek to combat the criminal networks that supply drugs to Scotland. The SDEA has achieved significant success in identifying and bringing to justice those who are involved in drugs trafficking. To date, operations involving the SDEA have seriously dented the profits of those who deal in illicit drugs.
Thanks to our close partnership with the Labour Government at Westminster, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 gives us the ability to seize the assets of drug dealers. To date, operations involving the SDEA have resulted in the seizure of class A drugs with a street value of more than £85 million. Such steady and commendable progress is no cause for complacency but should, nevertheless, be noted.
Alongside the SDEA, the Executive is supporting community efforts to wipe out drugs in local neighbourhoods. Members will be aware of the recent drug dealers don't care, do you? campaign; like many members, I have done my best to publicise that initiative in my constituency of Glasgow Anniesland. The campaign, which is funded with cash seized from drug dealers and run in conjunction with Crimestoppers, asks members of the public to give police any information that might help to track down the dealers and bring them to justice.
Since the start of the campaign, more than 3,500 calls have been acted upon, resulting in 116 arrests and 229 charges brought. I believe that that shows that communities are more than willing to play their part with the authorities in tackling the dealers who blight their areas. Annabel Goldie alluded to that in her speech and she was correct to do so. I believe that such community involvement is welcome, commendable and necessary.
The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 received royal assent on 7 April. I am sure that members will recall the debate in this Parliament in February on the Sewel motion that related to the formation of the serious organised crime agency. In that debate, the Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson, argued that
"SOCA's creation takes nothing away from the Scottish police service, but enhances the overall ability of the UK and Scotland to respond to international and serious crime",
and that the bill would create
"statutory UK-wide arrangements for the protection of witnesses".
She also said that the bill would
"introduce regulation of the private security industry in Scotland."—[Official Report, 2 February 2005; c 14144-5.]
Those are worthwhile objectives. The minister was right in what she said and the Parliament supported her. The SNP and the Tories were wrong to vote against that motion, plain and simple, and I hope that today they will be big enough to admit their mistake. Given Mr MacAskill's intelligent and considered speech, I remain hopeful, although not foolishly so, that that will be the case.
I hear what Bill Butler says about the regulation of the private security industry, but is it not the case that if the Executive had wanted to deal with that issue by means of a Sewel motion it could have done so in 2001 and had the legislation introduced here four years ago? It was the Executive's prevarication in the matter that delayed implementation.
That was an example of a highly spurious debating point that does not relate to the case at all.
People in communities throughout Scotland wish to see serious and organised crime tackled in a coherent fashion that will create a safer Scotland. SOCA will play a vital part in the creation of that society. I commend the motion to the chamber and I hope that the Tories and the SNP will show a change of heart.
Like all members who have spoken in the debate, I agree that it is important to tackle serious organised crime in Scotland. Co-operation and interagency working are vital to success in that area, but I would like to focus on one specific crime: the unacceptable and deplorable crime of human trafficking. Other members have referred to that crime, and it is an issue that I have raised before, but it is worth emphasising the extent of the problem.
Human trafficking is a highly organised international crime. According to Home Office statistics, around 800,000 men, women and children are trafficked every year. However, such crime is mainly perpetrated by men against women and children. Around 1,400 women were trafficked into the UK for sexual exploitation in 2000. Human trafficking is believed to be the fastest growing industry in central and eastern Europe and it is having its effect in Scotland.
The Executive is funding research into trafficking in Scotland and that is to be welcomed, because we need at least to try to determine the numbers of people who are trafficked into Scotland. Information gathering is difficult, but it is crucial. We need to ensure effective information gathering and sharing between non-governmental organisations and Government agencies, locally and globally, to gain a greater understanding of trafficking and to ensure that traffickers are brought to justice. That communication is beginning to happen, but it is very much in its early stages. I look forward to hearing about the Executive's progress. I believe that information sharing and interagency working have improved in relation to such serious crime, and that is helping to develop and build up intelligence-led policing that can help to take the onus off the women and children to testify against their traffickers.
The minister will be aware that leading UK charities have recently called on the UK Government to sign up to the new European convention on action against trafficking in human beings. I appreciate that it is a reserved matter, but can the minister tell us whether she has been involved in any discussions on the convention? There is concern that the UK Government will fail to sign up to the convention. The Executive's motion seems to signal that it would support efforts to ensure co-operation with European agencies.
The convention would secure and symbolise a concerted international effort against human trafficking. It would oblige the UK to meet minimum standards for the protection and support of trafficked people and would, therefore, have an obvious impact on the level of assistance that specialist services in Scotland could guarantee they would provide to trafficked people. The period of reflection that is proposed would also enable a supported period within which trafficked people may be able to provide better-quality information, safe from the threats of their traffickers, to assist with intelligence-led policing.
People trafficking is a shameful crime, which requires a concerted and sustained effort by the international community. Scotland must play its role in that effort.
Does Shiona Baird agree that the Executive's proposal to establish a SOCA for Scotland at Gartcosh, thereby bringing all the agencies together, will do exactly what she wants, and that if those agencies work together they will have a greater effect on the issues that she has mentioned?
It is important to recognise the importance of the convention. I would certainly like to see the UK sign up to that.
I welcome the commitment in the Executive motion to treat seriously the difficult issue of serious and organised crime. I also welcome the initiatives that have been undertaken by ministers in the recent past to address such crime in a more co-ordinated and structured fashion.
Many of us who represent areas of Glasgow have seen the proliferation of fast food shops, tanning parlours, taxi companies and even petrol filling stations that are probable fronts for the activities of serious and organised criminals. The impact of such activity in the immediate community can be negative. A number of members have identified the ways in which such activity impacts on communities, and I will dwell on those issues in my speech.
There is no doubt that there are lucrative profits to be made from such activities, but they can do substantial damage, both immediately and in the longer term, to the economy of the affected neighbourhoods. Legitimate traders are affected. Glaswegians and people beyond the city have affection for the Barras market in Glasgow, and a visit there is a genuine and unique experience. In recent years, however, the proliferation of counterfeit products, including compact discs and DVDs, and the panoply of individuals associated with that trade have diminished the quality of the experience, not just for local residents but for those who visit the market to experience an element of the city's social history. Those elements make the market an unattractive place to shop, and the way in which those people conduct themselves affects the way in which the police have to police the area.
Local newsagents and food outlets, in Glasgow and elsewhere, are affected by organised crime. When shops are opened up as fronts to ensure that money can be laundered more effectively and they undercut the long-standing traders in the neighbourhood, that can have a long-term detrimental effect on communities.
Many members have identified the ways in which the drug trade is used by serious and organised criminals. We are aware not only of the brutal impact that drug taking can have on drug users and families, but of the fact that, in areas such as my constituency, the need to feed an addiction can lead to the terrible tragedy of women from good homes finding themselves in difficulties and engaging in street prostitution. That can lead to the sort of horrors that we have seen only recently in the newspapers. However, that experience does not affect only those women who are involved in street prostitution. It leads to a devaluing of the immediate neighbourhood in which the activity is conducted and attracts to the community elements and individuals who would not otherwise be there. The knock-on effect of serious and organised crime is that it devalues the communities that we all care passionately about.
The tragedy is that we all, including myself, have an uneasy relationship with the issue of organised crime. Over the years, there have been portrayals of organised crime in media such as television and books. As a child, I remember being fascinated by the biographies of figures such as Capone, Legs Diamond and Lucky Luciano. The glamour of "The Godfather" trilogy is now also represented in the wonderful DVD series of "The Sopranos".
I will dwell on a metaphor from "The Sopranos" that relates to what the debate is about. The morality tale of the conduct of the Soprano family—in particular the head of the family, Tony Soprano—is, in a sense, a metaphor for the debate about serious and organised crime. He runs supposedly legitimate clubs—the Bada Bing club—security companies and refuse collection operations. He even says, euphemistically, when he is interviewed by the police, by his psychiatric counsellor and by his family that he is in the waste management business. That is the kind of metaphor that covers the nefarious activities that are engaged in by Mr Soprano and his family.
The morality tale ends in tragedy, because as it concludes—I am currently on series 4; I will tell members when I get through series 5—I presume that it leads to Mr Soprano's eventual devourment as a result of his conduct and that of his associates.
There is a powerful metaphor. Organised crime is glamorised in the media and its dramatic quality can have an impact even on people like me, but the reality is that individuals and communities are very badly affected by such crime.
If the Executive's activity in recent months—and the partnership that we want to develop with both the UK Government and European Governments to ensure that we work across the European Community and beyond to address the issue—can reduce the opportunities for individuals to succeed at the top end, the consequence as that tumbles down will be a reduction in the opportunities for young men and women to be involved in that sector and in that kind of activity at the bottom end. We must ensure that all the agencies work in partnership to address the issue.
I do not care what the constitutional position is in respect of the debate. I care that agencies talk to each other and that we target areas and deliver so that we can reclaim the neighbourhood near the Barras, the neighbourhood in Glasgow green and the lives and the lost opportunities that drugs and criminal activities claim in too many communities throughout Scotland. That is why I welcome the initiatives that have been undertaken by the ministerial team on justice and the work that is being done across Europe to address the issue. I commend the motion to Parliament.
As other members have said, the world that we live in is getting smaller and smaller. We are all closer and closer in time to our neighbours. For example, when we phone our insurance broker or—probably more likely—the claims department, we may talk to somebody far away in India.
On 25 May, members of the Justice 1 Committee will spend an hour talking to the Australian justice committee by videoconferencing. We conduct our business in a global manner and it is clear that criminal networks can also operate on the same basis—across national boundaries, across continents and across the globe. The minister and many others have highlighted the issue in their speeches. I will talk later about SOCA and the co-operation across national boundaries. It is clear that national boundaries are a real problem.
The expansion of the internet and its upgrading through broadband mean that it is much easier to contact people. That has led to a new type of crime, from the frauds that have taken in many people through money scams—like others, I must have had more Nigerians contact me with offers to make me rich than I have had Sunday lunches—to the appalling crime of internet grooming. Such crimes have been led by criminal gangs that often have their tentacles into our communities. Michael McMahon described exactly how that operates in his extremely good speech.
If such criminal activities are to be tackled, we must meet them head on and fight them across the UK. The Liberal Democrats have called for a national police agency to fight national and international crime, which would free up local police forces to concentrate on local issues. We have also called for a new national border force to tackle cross-border terrorism, drug smuggling and organised immigration crime.
The establishment of the SDEA has been a great success. That success is, of course, twofold—the agency's role has been not only to get drugs and criminals out of our communities but to identify criminal cash and assets for seizure. The figure that I had was that, in 2003-04, we seized £21 million, but the Solicitor General gave us up-to-date figures that showed that we are on the up, as in 2004-05 we gained £37 million. She also showed that we are having real successes in other areas against organised crime.
Those successes have come from co-operation between organisations. An example of co-operation that is being developed by the Executive is its proposal for what is being called a serious organised crime agency for Scotland—a £40 million agency that will probably be based in Gartcosh. The agency would consist of the SDEA, Strathclyde police forensic science department and a number of other related organisations such as HM Revenue and Customs. Annabel Goldie's amendment states that that would not be a good thing, but I suggest that bringing all the agencies on to one site is exactly what we should do. It is expected that the 200 SDEA staff would relocate sometime between 2006 and 2007. Such joint working can bring only greater success in tackling both local and international crime. The aim must be to show those who are determined to pursue criminal activities that Scotland is not the place to come and practise such activities.
Members will not be surprised that I agree with the sentiments on ID cards that were expressed by my colleague Jeremy Purvis. I am glad that Stewart Maxwell has returned to the chamber, because I also agree entirely with his analysis of ID cards. If Mr Bush is not going to introduce them in America, I would have thought that Mr Blair would have taken that into consideration.
It has been argued that one way of tackling serious and organised crime would be the introduction of ID cards. Of course, Liberal Democrats do not agree with that point of view and we will in due course oppose strongly any proposal by Mr Blair at Westminster to introduce them. ID cards have not proved effective in tackling any sort of crime, and the £3 billion that it is suggested would have to be spent on introducing them throughout Britain would be much better spent on policing and tackling crime at the grass roots. That would have a serious and direct effect on reducing crime and would be a much better way of spending the money.
To keep up with both national and international criminals we must be one step ahead. The establishment of the SDEA is a start and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill was another example of such an approach. The Executive's proposal to have the new serious organised crime agency for Scotland in one place, with all the agencies working together, is extremely positive. I believe that that will provide the opportunity for us in Scotland and the Executive to keep ahead of the criminals and keep ahead of the game.
It would be wrong to pretend that there is a great division over what we see as the problem that faces us today. We are largely in agreement and there have been some very constructive speeches, which have all have been tinged with anxiety because we recognise that the problem impinges adversely on Scotland's communities.
As we all become more familiar with faraway places and strange-sounding names, which is a good thing, it would be naive to assume that crime would not become more sophisticated and international in its dimensions. When that happens, a number of things are necessary in our response. First, we must recognise that there has to be an increased level of co-operation with police agencies in other parts of the world. It is clear that we must encourage such co-operation.
As the minister and the Solicitor General for Scotland said, we can look at various successes. Drug seizures are well up. The power to make financial seizures, which was introduced under legislation in the Scottish Parliament, has been a great tool in the fight against organised crime and there have been a number of high-profile and successful prosecutions.
However, there is evidence of failure. The pathetic plight of drug addicts is obvious on the streets of our cities and towns. When we consider the street price of heroin, we realise that much of what has been achieved will end up as nowt unless we are prepared to carry on the fight even more vigorously. The number of convictions for minor thefts and prostitution of people who have a habit that they find irresistible is another manifestation of the difficulty. It is also obvious that a number of businesses are fronts for criminal activity. Bruce McFee talked about that in relation to security companies and Frank McAveety mentioned the problem. The story of the pub with no beer in the east end of Glasgow might be apocryphal, but we must ask whether we really need so many tanning salons in Glasgow and other cities. We would be naive if we did not assume that many such establishments are units for money laundering.
Drugs are a major problem, but they are not the only problem. Counterfeit goods represent a multimillion pound scam that is based in areas as diverse as Malaysia, Hong Kong and Dubai. Shiona Baird and Pauline McNeill talked about people trafficking. The importing of women into this country to provide sexual pleasure for very perverted sections of our community is surely one of the most heinous crimes. Another aspect of people trafficking, which we cannot ignore, is the importing of people to this country to live in barrack-like accommodation and be paid £1 a day to carry out hard labour, so that they can feed their families in China and other parts of Asia. The production of bogus credit cards that originate in Pakistan and countries in the middle east is also a problem. The international dimension of all those crimes highlights the necessity of international co-operation.
We must consider what is required. We should consider and build on the success of the SDEA. The move to Gartcosh presents an opportunity for us to acknowledge that we can build on the agency's success only by increasing its resources. The SDEA has been successful, but we must acknowledge that the agency is likely to face growing challenges in the years ahead and we must give it the appropriate support. We must also consider carefully the relationship between the SDEA and SOCA. I do not want to revisit the debate that we had in the Parliament a few months ago, but problems could arise in that relationship. It was rather amusing that when Bill Butler intervened during Mr Maxwell's speech, Mr Maxwell, who had dealt with generalities rather than specifics, was unable to identify specific instances of difficulties. That was not surprising, because he would not be aware of any difficulties. It is obvious that the different set-ups and legal systems will inevitably cause pressures and we must watch that those pressures do not become counterproductive.
I reassure members that there will be on-going discussions about setting up the appropriate protocols. Of course, I will maintain close contact with my Home Office colleagues, because building partnerships is the important aspect of the matter, as the motion indicates.
I welcome the minister's reassurance, which will be of comfort to everyone.
We must consider other approaches. As Annabel Goldie said, we must consider policing and the work-up approach whereby small crimes are tackled first, in the hope of cutting off supplies to the Mr Bigs. The Minister for Justice might be surprised to learn that she and I are not at considerable variance in our views on the operation of the courts in New York, which I visited last month. Lessons can certainly be learned from New York, but before we could implement such an approach in this country there would have to be a dramatic slaying of sacred cows, which would be a challenge for the minister rather than for us.
It would be a challenge for Bill Aitken, too.
We must also consider the way in which the police and prosecution authorities are inhibited by the free availability of bail in our courts. A person who has been charged and who is likely to appear in the High Court on an indictment for some of the crimes that we have mentioned should not be granted bail. The number of repeat offenders who are on bail is a major problem, which must be addressed. When one of those offenders is allowed back on the streets, they have the opportunity to suborn or put pressure on witnesses and to cloud the issues in general. We simply cannot allow that to happen and I look to the Executive to propose measures that would combat the problem in the not-too-distant future.
The debate has been largely consensual, as a debate on a matter of the greatest importance to the people of Scotland should be. The Conservatives look forward to the Executive announcing concrete proposals in the months ahead. We acknowledge that crime is a problem for us all and that there are no easy answers to many aspects of the problem.
I welcome the opportunity to debate this important subject. Like Bill Aitken, I welcome the relative consensus that has been reached. The disagreements between and within parties are largely about implementation and detail, rather than broad principles. On that basis, the Scottish National Party will find it perfectly possible to support the Executive motion, while hoping that members of all parties will favour the strengthening of the motion by agreeing to our amendment.
I particularly welcome Elish Angiolini's speech, which touched on the essence of our amendment, because it demonstrated that distinctive and separate contributions must be made by politicians and law officers. It is excellent that law officers make significant contributions to the debate and interact with members of the Parliament, to listen and to inform. Of course, the Scottish law officers and legal system must be maintained at an appropriate distance from political interference. I suspect that any discussion of the matter that we have will be of a minor nature and not of great moment.
I always listen to Bill Aitken with care and interest, although I do not always agree with him. However, I do agree with his comment that it would be wrong to pretend that there is any great division among members in the debate. I also agree with his call for more co-operation across jurisdictions and police authorities throughout the world. I have a minor disagreement; if Bill Aitken were to search for volunteers in the Parliament and elsewhere to help to return Glasgow to being a city with a pub that has no beer, he might receive some offers of assistance, especially if he is paying.
The work-up approach to which Mr Aitken referred, the Tory amendment's call for a "zero-tolerant attitude" and the references to New York are beguilingly attractive, but the approach might cause genuine difficulties. Zero tolerance had successes when it was implemented in parts of New York, but the difficulty is that, like soap in the bath, crime might simply have been squeezed out, to adjacent parts of the east coast of the United States of America. I do not criticise zero tolerance; I merely put into perspective the inevitable limitations of the approach. However, sacred cows are even now being slaughtered in Delhi, as the authorities in that city try to deal with the serious problems that they cause, so perhaps we should reconsider the things that we hold dear, which might be inhibiting our ability to look afresh at our problems.
It has been suggested that we consider the weed-and-seed approach. I am not staking my personal credibility on the suggestion, but we should think about it, because it offers an interesting way of considering aspects of the criminal justice system.
Clearly, some people must be put in prison. They are so dangerous, and are such significant players in the industry that is criminality, that prison is the only place that allows us to protect society from them.
The view that too many people are in prison is shared. The suggestion has been made that communities could be offered the chance to choose people to take out of prison, who would be accepted into the communities in exchange for the money that it would have cost to keep them in prison. That money would then be spent on community projects. It is an interesting idea. It has the benefit of engaging members of the public in supporting communities and making them safer and clearer of criminality.
Annabel Goldie for the Tories said that we should increase security at our major ports, but that just takes us back to the New York argument. If we make it more difficult for people and things to come into this country through our major ports, they might just come in through our minor ports—or, indeed, through no port at all. A person has only to give one hour's notice, and does not need any permission, before arriving anywhere in Scotland from anywhere in the European Union. That involves only customs; the person does not have to tell immigration. As a private pilot, I can land in any field in Scotland from any country in the European Union without telling immigration first. That is the legal position. I am required only to give customs one hour's notice, which I can give en route. I do not need permission.
Therefore, we cannot solve problems by hermetically sealing boundaries. That approach might lead to improvements, but it will not solve the problems. The key is international cooperation, reaching out beyond our boundaries to work with others of good will who want to tackle international crime.
I have learned something this week. It had slightly puzzled me that hoodies had become a big issue. I knew that farmers were always very concerned about hoodies at this time of year, because they pick out the eyes of newly born lambs and pick over the entrails of dead sheep. To me, a hoodie has always been a variety of crow, but I now realise that hoodies are regarded as a source of serious crime in some urban areas. Therefore, I have become more informed as a result of my preparation for this debate.
The debate reminds us that crime, in economic terms, is a perfect market. In other words, if trading conditions in one part of the criminal industry become more difficult, criminals will simply move to another part. That is why we welcome any efforts to beef up the agencies that deal with the very senior criminals who are responsible for so much misery in society.
Kenny MacAskill said that a lot of manufacturing of drugs takes place in the United States; it is just the raw material that comes from Colombia. I visited Colombia some years ago and it is a quite frightening place to be. I visited a friend who ran a textile manufacturing plant just outside Bogotá. He kept a loaded shotgun behind every door of his house, his wife was not allowed to answer the door on any occasion whatever and he had put barricades at all the corners of the building to prevent ram-raids. He was a person working in a very innocent industry, but his situation typified the fear and difficulties of ordinary people living in a country that has been captured by international crime.
We are capturing increasing amounts of the assets of the wholesalers in the drug industry, and that is welcome. However, if we consider Scottish banks and note that they have a turnover of between £20 trillion and £80 trillion a day but issue just over one thousand million banknotes, we see an obvious difference between the amount of the actual folding stuff that we are all familiar with and the amount of stuff that goes through computers. I raised that issue in an earlier intervention.
Communication is changing in the modern world. When the Greeks sent ships out to their empire, it took three months to get an answer back. The Romans used hilltop signalling; they could exchange a message between London and Rome in a single day. Today we have the internet and we measure communication in milliseconds.
We on the side of good have to be as adept as the criminals at exploiting new technologies. For too long, they have set the agenda; now we must set it. All of us in the chamber must share responsibility and offer support for that.
This has been a good debate on a significant issue. Many members have outlined the serious threat that organised crime poses not just in some areas but in every Scottish community. We must ensure that our police and our law enforcement agencies are properly equipped to tackle the threat head on, and a number of members have mentioned our legislative and organisational proposals.
Tragically, serious and organised crime impacts on a number of levels. Yes, there are the international aspects, to which I will return; and yes, there is activity within the United Kingdom and across Scotland; but it is when serious and organised crime, operating across national boundaries, begins to impact on local communities that we see the devastating effects. Kenny MacAskill and others have described how things happening in Colombia and Afghanistan can have a direct impact on us.
Human traffickers are often engaged in a range of criminal activities. They deal not simply in the trafficking of humans; they also deal in prostitution, drugs, money laundering and other crimes. Pauline McNeill and Michael McMahon spoke about the human tragedy and the devastation that those activities can cause.
One of the most horrific articles that I have read in the past few years highlighted the problems of many young Albanian girls when they are trafficked into the major cities of Europe. Innocently and naively, sometimes girls had allowed themselves to be taken out of their country for what they had been persuaded would be a better life. But, horrifically, other young girls were being kidnapped and transported out of Albania. Not only were those young girls forced into prostitution in major cities across Europe, but their families back home were threatened. The girls were told what would happen to their families if they did not co-operate.
The article contained graphic and horrific details—for example, about a young girl who escaped and made her way back to Albania but was then re-abducted and sent back out. Punishment was inflicted on young women. So that the criminals could get their way, women had fingers cut off and were beaten and tortured. The article showed just how cruel, malicious and malevolent those criminals were when trying to protect the profits they earned from organised crime.
Stewart Stevenson and others have spoken about how sophisticated many international criminals are becoming. Every time there is a major technological or financial advance, we can be sure that the criminals are buying expertise in the technology to use it for their own advantage. As other members have highlighted, many criminals have front organisations—the so-called legitimate organisations—to hide the nefarious activities that are going on behind.
It is incumbent on us to ensure that we are equipped to deal with such criminal activities. We must ensure that we have the best available experts in financial scrutiny. As the Solicitor General said, we are doing that, not only for her department, but for the SDEA. We need access to the best accountants and lawyers; promotion and support for the best police experts; and the best electronic and surveillance equipment and computers to allow us to deal with the issues. However, we also need a legislative framework that supports that activity, which is why we have been determined to advance, slowly but surely, our work on the law. For example, in co-operation with our colleagues at Westminster, we have legislated on the proceeds of organised crime. We have also passed laws to protect victims, to ensure speedier access to justice in our court system and to ensure that we develop partnerships within Scotland and the United Kingdom to tackle serious and organised criminal activity.
We are addressing the matter seriously but, as several members including the minister have said, we cannot be complacent, because the criminals are determined that, every time that we make an advance, they will make a further advance in response.
Much high-tech crime is perpetrated against legitimate businesses. As the Solicitor General said, considerable expertise on security measures exists in the financial sector. Will the Executive ensure that it works closely with not only other security agencies, but the private sector, which in many cases is the victim of such crime?
Absolutely. Regular discussions are held with a number of organisations—we need to learn from, support and co-operate with them. Anything that can be done to our mutual advantage will certainly be done.
I will pick up on some of the specific points that have been made. Jeremy Purvis's point relates to Kenny MacAskill's comment about accepting best practice, from wherever it comes. Kenny MacAskill went on to make a plea that we ensure the independence of chief constables. I fundamentally agree that local operational decisions should be left to the police. However, that slightly contradicts what Annabel Goldie was driving at when she suggested that politicians should decide how policing should be carried out locally. That would not be acceptable.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, I do not have time.
In response to another question, the minister answered Annabel Goldie's question about how the SDEA will operate. I give the assurance that regular ministerial meetings have been and will continue to be held with colleagues at the Home Office. Annabel Goldie and other members, including Bill Butler, mentioned the work of the drug dealers don't care, do you? campaign, which had a significant buy-in from local communities—that was what made it successful. That shows that the public will respond if they are given the opportunity to do so.
Stewart Maxwell completely missed the point about the operation of the proposed serious organised crime agency and failed to answer the questions that were posed on that. He also made some spurious points about the proposed supreme court—we are not trampling over our unique court system. We have said clearly on the record on more than one occasion that SOCA may carry out activities in Scotland in relation to an offence that it suspects has been or is being committed only with the agreement of the Lord Advocate. The safeguard is built in.
We had a strange contribution from Bruce McFee when he intervened on Bill Butler. I know that there are big debates about the future of the SNP and independence, but Bruce McFee has taken that a step further.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No.
Mr McFee criticised us for not introducing a Sewel motion in 2001 in relation to the regulation of the private security industry, but the reason why we did not do so was that we were consulting on a separate regulatory body for Scotland—obviously, Bruce McFee did not want that to come about. The reason why we later moved to a Sewel motion was that our investigation showed that there was a case for a UK-wide regulatory body. There is a first time for everything.
The debate has been good and several interesting points have been raised. I welcome the broad commitment that members of all parties have made to reinforce and make progress on our determination to tackle serious and organised crime in Scotland.