Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4268, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that the Parliament agrees that the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill be passed.
The bill has been described by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland as the most radical piece of Scottish policing legislation since 1967. I can safely say that it is at least one of the most important. The level of debate in the chamber today and throughout proceedings certainly shows that.
The bill gives the police the tools and powers that they need to protect our communities from a range of violent and disruptive behaviours. It establishes organisations that will provide police support services and tackle serious organised crime more effectively than ever before. It makes vital improvements to the law on marches and parades and establishes clear statutory powers that prosecutors can use to get criminals to give evidence against their colleagues. The bill will make a real and practical difference.
I hope that the measures are not seen simply in isolation, because they are key parts of our wider strategy to make the most radical reforms to the criminal justice system that Scotland has ever seen. The bill is part of my vision for end-to-end reform of the criminal justice system, so that we can prevent and divert criminal activity; reduce the likelihood of offending and reoffending; and challenge the behaviour of offenders so that they return to peaceful law-abiding ways of life.
I am sure that that vision and my determination are shared by everyone in the chamber. They come not only from my everyday experiences but from those of people throughout Scotland who look to the police and the criminal justice system for help and support, particularly those who are victims of crime. Like other members, I am only too aware of how people's lives are blighted by serious crime and antisocial behaviour in their local communities. As the Minister for Justice, I cannot intervene directly in every case although, like other members, people write and speak to me almost daily about those difficulties. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the justice system is focused 100 per cent on serving and protecting the public. That means making changes. By harnessing new technology and streamlining organisational structures, we can free up officers for more front-line tasks. The bill will help us to achieve that.
Establishing the new Scottish police services authority might have seemed at times to be a rather technical matter. The new authority will focus on providing services such as the Scottish Police College, the Scottish Criminal Record Office and the forensic science service on a top-quality national basis. Again, I believe that that will free up police forces' own energy and resources to focus on their core business of operational policing.
I hear people say just how scared they are at times to go out of their houses and on to the streets because of violence, gang fighting or antisocial behaviour in their area. I repeat that there is no excuse for that kind of behaviour, and there is simply no excuse for it to be attached to marches and parades. There is no excuse for those who use marches and parades to indulge in that kind of behaviour and to cause trouble. That is why I was pleased this month to bring together organisations from different traditions, both from the Orange lodge and the republican movement, with the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Strathclyde police, Glasgow City Council and North Lanarkshire Council. For the first time, all those different organisations joined me to sign a declaration pledging to work together to deal with those who turn up at marches and parades purely and simply to indulge in violent, abusive and bigoted antisocial behaviour, which none of us wants to see. The reforms to the law on public processions in the bill will support the aims of that declaration and they are, of course, another key part of our work to reduce the disruption that some marches cause.
We have had a good debate today on proposals to let the police take and retain more DNA than they can at present. I know that we have not always agreed on every aspect of that proposal, but I hope that we can all agree that DNA is a vital tool for the police in solving crimes, catching criminals and, indeed, protecting our communities. As I said earlier, harnessing new technology will free up officer time to focus on front-line duties. I hope that we regard DNA as part of that. I have listened carefully to the arguments about civil liberties and, of course, they are important. DNA is a powerful tool and the police must use it only for appropriate purposes. However, I hope that we all recognise that using DNA technology can solve crimes and make police investigations more efficient and that we can all sign up to that.
I am pleased that Parliament today supported Bill Butler's and Paul Martin's amendments to enable the police to retain more DNA than they can at present. I particularly welcome the focus on violent and sexual offences. We heard powerful speeches from Marilyn Livingstone and others who consistently represent the interests of victims of sexual abuse. Given the low conviction rates for rape in particular, it is clear that additional DNA retention could be of great help to the police.
I will move on briefly to the issue of knife crime, which I know we all want to be tackled robustly. Last week, as members will know, I announced plans to provide 1,000 hand-held metal detectors to police forces. On Monday, the Lord Advocate announced changes to prosecution guidance on knife crime to deal more effectively with those who persistently carry knives, and yesterday saw the start of our first national knives amnesty to encourage individuals to bin a knife and save a life. Those are all important steps in tackling knife crime, giving the police much-needed new powers to deal with people who carry knives and, of course, increasing the maximum penalties that are available.
I genuinely thank the bill team, the Justice 2 Committee and the Deputy Minister for Justice for their hard work all the way through the process, but especially at stage 2. That hard work delivered improvements to the bill as we took it through the parliamentary process. It has ensured that the bill will give the police and their partners in the criminal justice system the tools that they need to protect our communities. It will ensure that the police are backed up by efficient, effective support organisations. All of that is designed to make our communities safer and stronger.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I thank the minister for that and I thank the bill team and the Deputy Minister for Justice for taking the bill through Parliament.
I do not wish to rehearse earlier arguments, on DNA retention, which was introduced into the bill by Mr Martin's amendments, because our position is clear—we oppose it. However, we recognise that there is a great deal more in the bill that unites us, so I will concentrate not on matters about which we made our point during stage 3 and to which we will no doubt return as the election approaches, but on matters that unite us, on which there has been a great deal of consensus.
As Bill Butler and others said, we must address changing circumstances and problems. To some extent, the bill is consolidating legislation. It provides for a variety of measures, some of which are new and some of which add to or amend existing provisions. We welcome and are happy to support most of the bill's provisions, apart from the few matters about which we disagree. For example, the establishment of the Scottish police services authority seems to be sensible. Jackie Baillie and John Swinney commented on the fact that, for a small country, Scotland seems to have a lot of organisations, and it seems sensible to review the organisations that we have. We must balance local accountability for the police, which people want, with the economies of scale that go with living in a small country, and it is sensible to strike that balance by developing shared and joint services, if that is possible. The days when police officers in Whitburn and Harthill wore different uniforms and were dealt with by separate departments are gone. That situation was ridiculous, and we must move on. The Executive is to be credited with addressing the problem.
The Scottish crime and drug enforcement agency is necessary. We live in a global economy, which brings with it global crime. The amounts of money that are at stake mean that criminals are much more sophisticated. The new methods and technologies that benefit the forces of law and order are being used by violent criminals to undermine the law, and we must address new and sophisticated criminal gangs. That is not an indictment of our current police service, which serves us well, but a recognition that some criminal activity is highly sophisticated and must be tackled by professional resources using different skills from those of the beat bobbies and community officers who are essential for our society. We therefore support the SCDEA.
Similarly, we welcome the establishment of the police complaints commissioner for Scotland. Although I would not go as far as to say that the police complaints system has been a running sore, it has generated discontent. The approach does not go as far as some people would like, but it has won the support of people who opposed it when it was first proposed, so we should support and welcome it.
We welcome the approach to banning orders. Many members, from all parties, query why people want to take part in marches in the 21st century. Although people have the right to march, communities have a right not to have marches and all the baggage that goes with them thrust down their throats. We fully support the bill's sensible measures in that regard.
Weapons were mentioned. There is a culture problem and we need to take legislative action. I do not remember whether Bill Butler or Charlie Gordon made the point that we must try to reach a consensus on the matter, but knife crime is a gargantuan problem in Scotland and it must be addressed. In a civilised society it is appalling that there is one stabbing homicide per week. We cannot tolerate such a situation.
We support other aspects of the bill. We have put on the record our opposition to Paul Martin's amendments, but that matter is for another day. Not only will the bill advance the interests of law and order in the judicial service and the police; it will make Scotland a better society. We are happy to support it.
I joined the Justice 2 Committee at the beginning of stage 2 and I congratulate the clerks and witnesses on their work on the bill. I also acknowledge the involvement and helpful attitude of the Deputy Minister for Justice and the work of past and current members of the committee.
We support the bill because, as Kenny MacAskill said, there is more in it to support than there is to argue about. However, we have placed on record our concern that amendments at stage 3 appear to create two classes of innocence, which will no doubt be challenged in the courts in future. We are very concerned about the retention of DNA samples from innocent people. DNA is an exceptionally good tool for solving crime, but we must consider how tools are used, controlled and regulated.
I hope that the bill will be the start of a process that leads to communities and society being safer and fairer. We must recognise the new forms of international crime. Modernisation and the efficiencies that will be gained from the Scottish police services authority are very welcome. We particularly welcome the SCDEA, because we live in a world of international crime, from which we cannot escape.
We have supported the police complaints commissioner from the beginning, as we supported the bill's general principles at stage 1. The need for the commissioner is a special case. We have talked about efficiency in government and the number of ombudsmen that we have, but it is clear that the public want the police complaints commissioner; we support that.
Football banning orders will bring a semblance of order and take some pressure off the police.
I agree with comments that have been made about the laws on public processions. We must defend individuals' rights of free speech and of movement, but that must be done with regard to the benefits or disbenefits to the communities in which they are active. We have received letters from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and from councils that have many marches in their areas, which are desperately worried about whether the proposed £200,000 fund will be adequate. That discussion will run on and I hope that the minister will provide some relief on that in winding up.
We had a good debate about knife crime, which is a blight on society. It is not all localised in Glasgow—we have such crime in the north-east, too. We are at the start of a debate, which we welcome. In dealing with that terrible problem we must be sure that we implement future regulations with the community's support. We also very much support mandatory drug testing.
In relation to all those matters, we look forward to the sentencing bill, because if we are to change the culture of society, the results of that bill must send clear messages to criminals that we hope will put them off crime and will ensure that they pay the price of their crime. The Conservatives will fight for honest sentencing.
Anything that modernises, supports and funds adequately our police to protect our people and themselves must be supported. Police numbers and adequate funding for the development of police services are for a debate on another day.
I regret that we had the spat about the compromise on amendment 2007, but we have said our piece—I am sorry; I mean amendment 207. I am already in election year. We welcome the bill overall and we will vote for it.
Perhaps David Davidson felt like we were discussing amendment 2007.
In the debate on DNA samples, we heard much about principles. The Scottish National Party made much of taking what it claimed was a principled position. It is happy that in some cases in which there is no criminal conviction, individuals' DNA will be retained under the civil procedure for a risk of sexual harm order. The SNP accepted that, although a risk of sexual harm order involves no burden of proof—
Of course it does.
A civil procedure does not involve a burden of proof; a sheriff just has to be satisfied. That is quite a distinction.
Mr MacAskill attacked me for misquoting GeneWatch or for not speaking to Helen Wallace, but I have spoken to her three times this week. I also quoted her accurately, and I will do so again for his benefit. On 22 May, she said of amendment 207:
"The Scottish Parliament is taking a much more thoughtful approach than was the case at Westminster … The amendment recognises that there may be some carefully justified exceptions where the police could benefit from keeping some DNA profiles longer on the Database."
In voting for amendment 204, SNP members showed that they are happy for the DNA of a child who has not been convicted of a sexual offence and who has only been referred to in an allegation to be kept for life, if the principal reporter is satisfied that the allegation had grounds. Is that a principled position?
Will the member give way?
No.
I will quote GeneWatch again, since Mr MacAskill seems keen that I should do so accurately. GeneWatch said:
"There may be grounds to take DNA from children in some circumstances but these proposals"—
amendments 204 and 205—
"provide no time limits on how long the police can keep this highly sensitive information or how it can be used".
That is why GeneWatch opposed the proposals and why I opposed them.
I have principles. Keeping the DNA of an unconvicted child for life, with no time limit and no limitations on how it can be used—those are principles? Mr Maxwell is shaking his head. Where are the principles in that?
The principles are quite clear. The amendment applies to those under-18s who have admitted an offence and accept the grounds of the referral. There is due process through the children's panel, through the chief constable and through a sheriff. There is due process and there is admission. That is the guilty being charged, not the innocent.
I am delighted that Mr Maxwell got on his feet because he has made a complete fool of himself. He was talking about amendment 205, not 204. Amendment 204 is when the grounds are an alleged offence. Amendment 205 is when a principal reporter goes to a sheriff not to determine guilt but simply to approve whether the DNA should be kept for life. The SNP would be satisfied with that. The SNP needs not only to go back and read the amendments but to start at square one with regard to its principles.
There are some positive reforms in the bill. It is a large bill, ranging from the sale of fireworks and reducing violence at football matches to changing the procedures for marches and processions. A positive move in the bill is the commitment to establish an independent police complaints commissioner, which is a long-standing Liberal Democrat pledge. It will give the Scottish public considerable confidence that when they have a complaint about the processes of policing, it will be considered properly and independently. Finally, by supporting some DNA proposals and rejecting others, the Parliament will be making a significant contribution to criminal justice in Scotland.
I wish to dwell only on amendments 204 and 205. The provisions in amendment 204 will apply where
"the Principal Reporter is satisfied—
(i) that the ground specified … is established; and
(ii) that an offence committed by the child causing that ground to be satisfied is a relevant sexual offence".
It is rather rich of the Executive to persuade the Parliament that antisocial behaviour orders are relevant to children—no guilt, civil process, civil standard of proof—
Will the member give way?
No.
ASBOs are relevant to children, but a child can be a sexual predator just as an adult can. A child who is a sexual predator needs to be protected and needs to be looked after within the children's panel system. That is self-evident, but there are victims of children as well. We have heard talk of victims; Marilyn Livingstone referred to the victims of sexual abuse. Someone can be abused by a child. Keeping the DNA of an innocent child who has admitted a sexual offence is hardly a greater problem of principle than Jeremy Purvis voting for keeping the DNA of absolutely innocent people who have appeared in court and immediately been identified as not being the right Paul Martin, Stewart Stevenson, Bill Aitken or whoever. In the realpolitik of Scotland, the first time a juvenile sexual offender reoffends undetected because the police did not have access to the DNA of that child from the previous offence, the political price for Jeremy Purvis and his colleagues will be significant and terminal.
Perhaps uniquely, the Scottish Socialist Party will oppose the bill at 5 pm. Throughout the bill's parliamentary progress, we have raised many concerns, and it is fair to say that the bill's deficiencies are clearer now, at twenty to 5, than they ever have been before.
The overall thrust of the bill is the belief that we can best tackle crime and disorder by giving police ever more powers, even if that means taking away the civil liberties of those who are convicted of nothing. So be it, they say. They say that innocent people have nothing to fear. Well, they do now, because they will be fingerprinted, DNA tested and banned from football grounds, and their liberties will be restricted right across the board. I disagree with that approach.
We tackle crime by attacking it at its roots. The Executive has signally failed in that regard because it lacks effort, determination and purpose on its side of the equation. The bill aims to restrict the rights of the innocents. Football banning orders will be served on people who have been convicted of no crime. Public marches will be restricted. People will be fingerprinted on the whim of a police constable. Paul Martin's late amendment is relevant and not out of place in a bill of this character. David Davidson flagged up the fact that we now have two classes of innocence.
For me, a rubicon is being crossed and I fear that Labour will be back to cross others. It has gone for the easy target of sex offenders and it will not stop there. It will go after others on the basis that although they have not been convicted of anything, they can be brought into the system.
The bill fails to deliver on the promise of an independent police commissioner. Jeremy Purvis makes big claims for such a small measure in the bill. With one eye on the widespread lack of faith and public confidence in the present system, the Executive has come forward with a meek and inadequate proposal.
Although I believe that the Executive is more genuine on knife crime, I disagree with an approach that believes that we can simply extend sentences and extend sentences and extend sentences, and somehow that will make the problem go away. We have been extending sentences and the problem is getting worse.
As I said in my contributions on my amendments, taking DNA and fingerprint evidence from people who have not even been charged, far less convicted, is a mistake and I am disappointed that the amendment about DNA was passed. That it sits perfectly easily alongside such other reductions in liberty in the bill is clear to anyone. However, the best way to tackle crime is not to take away the rights and liberties of the innocent, as the bill repeatedly seeks to do. That is to fail justice.
I approached the debate on the bill thinking that it contained small flaws. However, one principle after another has been breached and in all conscience, I cannot support it. The SSP will oppose the bill when it comes to the vote at 5 o'clock. We did that at stage 1, then persevered and lodged our amendments throughout the process, but there are too many flaws in the bill to allow us to support it.
I rise to support the motion in the name of the Minister for Justice. As a member of the Justice 2 Committee, I wish to put on record my thanks to the clerking team and the Scottish Parliament information centre for their support.
Anyone following today's spirited stage 3 proceedings will recognise that the bill contains a wide range of measures, some contentious and some not. All aspects of the bill that we have agreed today will support its twin aims of strengthening the effectiveness of the police and improving the safety and security afforded to communities across Scotland. Measures such as the establishment of the Scottish police services authority, which will provide common police services and maintain the new SCDEA, are to be welcomed.
Similarly, the introduction of mandatory drug testing and referral for certain arrested persons is praiseworthy. I believe that the measures that we agreed after a thorough debate on the complex subject of the retention of DNA are necessary and proportionate. They will increase the safety and security of some of the most vulnerable members of our society—that is a good thing.
I welcome the introduction of a new police complaints commissioner for Scotland. That innovation will provide robust and independent scrutiny of the manner in which police forces handle complaints from members of the public. The commissioner's range of powers and duties will improve the standard and consistency of the handling of police complaints across the Scottish police service—that is commendable.
Another aspect of the bill that I want to mention is the introduction of football banning orders, which are dealt with in sections 47 to 65. Although, thankfully, the level of violence and disorder at domestic games has dropped since the early 1980s, there is still a worrying element of football-related violence and disorder, even at minor games. Of course FBOs are not a complete solution, but I believe that they are a practical and reasoned response to the problem of football-related violence and disorder. They will be an effective instrument when they are employed appropriately.
I am content that the provisions to modernise and standardise the arrangements for public processions are, like those for FBOs, fit for purpose. The provisions are not about curtailing essential rights of assembly. On the contrary, they will ensure the fullest possible participation of Scotland's communities in the decision-making processes.
I welcome especially the provisions in the bill to tackle the deeply disturbing and distressing upward trend in knife crime. That trend touches every part of Scotland but is most apparent in Glasgow and the west of Scotland. As one of the committee's witnesses said, the measures have the potential to save life.
I congratulate Charlie Gordon on providing members with the opportunity to debate mandatory sentencing. It is a serious issue, which was dealt with in a serious fashion by members from across the chamber. I remain wholly unconvinced of the efficacy of mandatory sentences, as does the Parliament. I believe that to be the correct view, but I will nevertheless echo the plea that the member for Glasgow Cathcart made in the debate. I wholly acknowledge the independence of the judiciary but, as my constituents would expect, I urge the fullest use of the powers that will now be available to sentencers in the appropriate circumstances. We do not expect to direct the judiciary, but we—and, more important, the public of Scotland—expect it to follow the wise advice of the Lord Advocate.
I commend the bill. It is good law. It presents us with an opportunity to continue to build safer communities across Scotland and I commend it to Parliament.
The debate on knife crime to which Bill Butler referred was taken seriously by most members, but I was genuinely disappointed by the catcalls that were made by some members, who wanted to caricature the concept that counselling has a role to play. Some members made catcalls saying, "Oh, just give them a wee hug." That was a disrespectful way to treat the contributions of other members. Charlie Gordon spoke of the moral responsibility with which we should address the problem. No member, whatever their view, would have caricatured him as part of the hang-'em-and-flog-'em brigade nor would they have mischaracterised him as wanting to bring back the birch, so it was inappropriate for his colleagues to caricature the approach that was proposed in amendment 160.
I am not a regular at time for reflection, but we heard an interesting observation recently at time for reflection, when we were reminded that
"to every complex problem there is a simple solution—which is wrong."—[Official Report, 17 May 2006; c 25643.]
Even though we hear good noises about alternatives to custody, far too often prison remains the simple, easy and wrong solution that politicians reach for.
The other contentious issue that we discussed today is DNA. I came to the newer amendments with a genuinely open mind. If I had heard robust evidence on effectiveness, my mind would have remained open, but I heard no such evidence. Instead, I heard two key arguments in favour of the retention of DNA samples. Some argued, "We are simply on the side of the victim." Others said, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." However, both those arguments could be marshalled in favour of any measure that attacks civil liberties as long as its intention is to protect public safety.
Those two arguments could be used in favour of putting the entire population under permanent 24-hour surveillance. That would be an effective way of reducing crime, but most people, including the victims of crime, want to live in a free society. I have yet to hear any advocate of those two arguments explain why they do not propose to require samples from the entire population to be put on a national DNA database. Such a proposal would abolish the idea of presumption of innocence under the law. The most that any of us would be able to say is that we had not been proven guilty yet. The amendment that was agreed to—amendment 207—does not abolish that presumption of innocence, but it will, I fear, begin to undermine it. It calls on us to initiate a wider debate about the role of DNA testing and surveillance technology in our society.
There are sufficient measures in the bill for me to support the motion to pass it, but some issues that have been raised in the debate require further attention.
I welcome the wide range of measures that are being introduced under the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. I will deal primarily with the amendments that were lodged in my name. The real challenge that the Parliament faces lies in evaluating the effectiveness of the legislation that we deliver. I think that the provisions of amendment 207 will be positively evaluated over time, and that crimes will be detected as a result of DNA that would not otherwise have been held on the database being available. That is how the legislation will be evaluated once it is passed. We face more difficult challenges in evaluating the effectiveness of other legislation that we pass, but the effect of the provisions of amendment 207 will be clear. I look forward to evaluating and debating them in the Parliament. I hope that members—I include myself in this—will withdraw a number of comments that they have made should the measures not prove to be effective.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have time. I asked Mike Rumbles to give way to me—I am sorry if that sounds childish.
David Davidson made a point about there being two classes of innocents. I agree with him on that point: one class of innocents is the victims, who are innocent throughout the process, as I set out earlier. The 116 rape victims to whom I referred earlier are innocent. I accept Mr Davidson's point about the innocence of the people who have been accused, but we are not taking that away. We are providing an opportunity for police officers to retain a DNA sample that can be interrogated as part of the database. Those are the two types of innocents I see in the process, rather than those to whom David Davidson referred.
I have carefully examined the websites of all the main parties. They all discuss cutting down on the bureaucracy that police officers deal with. They all talk a good game in that respect. The measures under amendment 207 will cut down on bureaucracy. They will prevent innocent members of the public from being imprisoned and held on remand, as happened in the past, prior to the DNA process being put in place.
We have a good bill, which will provide a more effective means of dealing with crime. I welcome a number of the measures that have been discussed throughout its passage.
I will speak mainly on an issue that has not been covered other than in a few words by Bill Butler. There is a defect in our system in that, unless there is an amendment about it, an issue does not get properly discussed at stage 3. Whereas there has been some very good discussion about DNA and knife crime, there was no discussion about football banning orders and marches. I welcome those aspects of the bill. I hope that they will succeed and that they will be properly monitored. However, it is still not clear to me how football banning orders will work and how fans who misbehave at away matches can be properly dealt with. There will have to be a properly worked-out system. Having read the bill, I cannot quite see how it can deal with those situations. I hope that the minister will give proper thought to how to achieve that.
More generally, the fact that the Parliamentary Bureau extended the originally intended time for debate was welcome. However, the time for debate is still not adequate. We need more time to discuss amendments, so that people can give way to one another without losing time for their speeches, and more time for the final debate, so that more members can contribute. Otherwise, it can appear perfunctory. The fact that we obtained more time was a step forward, but we need even more time in future.
I welcome the bill. There was a good ding-dong on two or three issues. There are many good things in the bill. I hope that we will monitor how it works overall and that it will improve policing and people's behaviour.
It is natural that what divides us should get more attention than what unites us, but we will support the motion to pass the bill at decision time.
I want to highlight a few issues that have not been debated. The introduction of football banning orders is particularly welcome, although I am cynical about the effectiveness of a system that will pick out banned people from a crowd of 60,000, albeit that we have closed-circuit television. I would have preferred for the individuals concerned to be dealt with by a probation order, with a condition that the person subject to it presents themselves at a police office during any major football match.
The public processions provisions are welcome. To many, public processions are an irritant; to others, they are a downright menace. The provisions in part 2, chapter 2 will allow there to be greater control over processions and greater community involvement, which has to be welcome.
We support fully the offensive weapons provisions. It is high time that there was wider recognition of the extent of the problem. Our only difficulty is that we cannot support Charlie Gordon's effort to have mandatory sentences introduced. It is important to underline the fact that, as far as the Conservatives are concerned, the judiciary will always be left with unfettered discretion but, in return, members of the judiciary have to acknowledge that offensive weapons are a real concern and apply their minds to whether they are imposing the appropriate sentences.
The provisions on reductions in sentences for offenders who assist investigations could cause difficulties but are welcome nonetheless. There is much more in the bill to unite us than there is to divide us. We will certainly not impede its progress this afternoon.
I will pick up where Bill Aitken left off: there is much to unite us in the bill and little to divide us. I thank the Justice 2 Committee's clerking team and the Scottish Parliament information centre staff, who were extremely helpful throughout the process.
The creation of the Scottish police services authority is an important step forward. The minister described it as technical and administrative and it has not received a lot of attention, but it is an important step forward.
The creation of the Scottish crime and drug enforcement agency received a lot more attention during stage 1 and stage 2. There was a lot of discussion of how such a national agency would fit into the overall police structure. I am reassured that we are placing the agency on a level at which it can tackle crime throughout Scotland and cross-border and international crime and work with colleagues from throughout Europe and the rest of the world on an equal footing. Members of the committee felt that it was important that the title of the head of the agency should reflect that.
The creation of the police complaints commissioner for Scotland is welcome and overdue. There was an argument about whether dealing with police complaints should have been part of another ombudsman's remit and whether the commissioner should carry out completely independent investigations. We have reached a sensible compromise. The public will generally be happier with the complaints process; it will be seen to be independent and when the commissioner is reviewing cases, they will be able to appoint others, outside the police, to investigate if they feel that that is necessary.
The introduction of football banning orders is particularly welcome. Mr Davidson was not involved in scrutinising the bill at stage 1. A number of members of the committee, including Bill Butler and me, went to an old firm game, which was an interesting experience. Bill Aitken said that he was not that keen on the idea of football banning orders, despite CCTV, and that other methods of dealing with the problem could be used. The evidence from England and Wales was clear that football banning orders had been effective there. We should always look to learn from best practice, no matter where it comes from. Football banning orders are an important step forward in public safety.
On public processions, I remain to be convinced that the steps that we have taken will be as effective as many people hope that they will be. I hope that they will be and that they will result in communities feeling more calm and reassured about processions in their area and in the marchers still being allowed to march wherever they see fit, as long as the march does not too greatly upset the communities through which it will go. There is a balancing act to be performed on this issue. We will have to wait and see how the situation develops in the coming years.
One of the most important debates that we had today was on offensive weapons. It was a good debate and I think that we have moved forward on this issue. A lot remains to be done, but that relates to cultural changes rather than legislative changes.
I welcome the bill and my party will be supporting it this evening.
I wish to thank a number of people as well. I thank the committee for a thorough investigation of the process, particularly during stage 2, when a number of refinements were made to the bill that reflected the views of the committee. That helped to strengthen the bill and I commend the committee for that.
I also want to thank Bill Barron and the bill team, who did a tremendous job in supporting the Minister for Justice and me through a long and complicated process. Sometimes, we underestimated the scope of the bill. We are aware of the huge amount of work that was put into the bill. I would like to pay specific tribute to a young member of the bill team called Ian Ferguson, who I think will go far. Normally, when we say that someone will go far, we are talking about their professional life—I am sure that Ian will go far in that regard too—but, on Saturday, Ian emigrates to New Zealand. I wish him well in his future life. I just hope that there is no truth in the rumour that New Zealand was the furthest away that he could get from Cathy Jamieson and me.
I did not intend to comment on the DNA issue, but I must pick up on the point that Stewart Stevenson made. I thought that that was an ill-considered contribution—which is unusual for Stewart Stevenson—and that he might be trying to secure a political fig leaf for himself on the question of DNA. If he had listened—and he can check this in the Official Report—he would have heard that I said that I sympathised with many of the points that Paul Martin made in relation to the young people who go into the children's hearings system in situations involving violence or sex offences. However, I also said that what Paul Martin was proposing would not work. The amendments are technically deficient. To give himself some political protection, Stewart Stevenson was asking the Parliament to support a technically incompetent amendment that would not have delivered what many speakers around the chamber want to happen. I gave a commitment to speak to the Minister for Education and Young People. I did so at lunch time and can say that we will go and look at some of the issues that have been raised in the debate. Not only was Stewart Stevenson at it; he was trying to inveigle us into an incompetent conclusion.
As a number of speakers have said, the bill is a significant piece of legislation. Members across the chamber have expressed their abhorrence of knife crime and their determination to do something about it. Like Charlie Gordon and others, I hope that the bill will make a significant contribution in that regard. However, we are determined that if anything else needs to be done in the future, we will return to the legislation. In addition to the work in relation to the bill and the guidance from the Lord Advocate, the work of the violence reduction unit is already beginning to show some significant results. I wish the unit well.
Others have spoken about football banning orders and parades and marches. Drug testing has not featured in the discussion, but it is a significant issue. Queen's evidence and the need to encourage people to give evidence and the need to reduce some of the waste that exists in the court system are also important issues.
One of the issues that relates, to an extent, to the DNA debate is the issue of dealing with sex offenders. Given the acknowledgment that certain measures need to be taken against people who pose a significant risk to the community, I am glad that Parliament agreed to amendment 200, in the name of Bill Butler. Moreover, I am glad that the Parliament has now accepted the principle that in certain circumstances innocent people's DNA can be retained to protect the wider public. On the other hand, we need to assure people that the provision will be used appropriately and that safeguards will be built into the process.
As Cathy Jamieson said, this bill represents an important part of our wider agenda to reform the criminal justice system. We want to ensure that all its aspects meet our communities' needs, and Parliament can take some satisfaction in the knowledge that it is passing a bill that will make a difference and provide our communities with additional safeguards and protection. I look forward to seeing its direct results not only for the people whom I represent but for communities throughout Scotland.