Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) 03 February 2021
Let us be clear: the unexplained wealth order was specifically designed to bring transparency to the murkiest of dealings. All that today’s motion does is call on the Scottish ministers to use their power as set out in legislation. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, as amended, allows for the Court of Session to make an order
“on an application made by the Scottish Ministers”.
The Scottish Government has claimed that that power rests entirely with the civil recovery unit, which reports directly to the Lord Advocate, and the cabinet secretary has relied on that argument again today.
However, the decision-making process was designed by ministers. The power to apply rests with the Scottish Government as a whole—that is what the legislation says. It is then the Court’s decision whether to grant an order. That is not just my interpretation; the Lord Advocate confirmed as much when I raised the matter with him last March. In a letter to me, he stated:
“Scottish Ministers are the enforcement authority for the purposes of civil recovery proceedings in Scotland. This function is fulfilled, on their behalf.”
Therefore, the Scottish Government’s contention, as set out again in its amendment, that an unexplained wealth order is a question for the CRU and the CRU alone, does not stack up.
Over the last year, many of my constituents have shared with me their deep concerns about the way in which the Trump retreats were purchased. Those concerns may be misplaced and they may not, but the Lord Advocate’s response was hardly reassuring. I was told to
“appreciate that the work of the CRU is necessarily of a sensitive nature”
and that the unit responsible for unexplained wealth orders could therefore
“neither ... confirm nor deny the existence of an ongoing investigation”.
That response is even less transparent than Trump’s business dealings.
As the Avaaz report explains, the unexplained wealth order is a legislative tool that should “compel transparency” where there are questions to be answered. The motion does not try to pre-empt the findings of any such investigation. It simply asks the Scottish ministers to make use of a power that rests with them. It is not enough to stand idly by. If the Scottish Government is genuinely interested in preserving the rule of law, it must ensure that it is upheld without fear or favour—President or not. The Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the motion at decision time.
16:54