Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) 03 February 2021
I am pleased to open for Labour in this debate on a motion that
“calls on the Scottish Ministers to use their powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to seek the grant of an Unexplained Wealth Order in respect of Donald Trump’s property transactions in Scotland.”
Labour supports the motion and agree that there are valid questions to be answered about the acquisition and exploitation of Scottish property by former President of the United States Donald Trump.
The case for doing so has been set out by Patrick Harvie and by the campaign group Avaaz, which in 2019 published a full report on the need to launch an unexplained wealth order investigation into Donald Trump’s all-cash purchase of Turnberry golf course, as well as a legal analysis of why an unexplained wealth order is appropriate in this instance. Given the wealth of evidence in relation to financial misconduct by the former President—which I cannot go into now, because if I did, we would be here all day—I do not see why the Scottish Government is so hesitant to pursue that course of action.
The Government’s amendment says that it
“believes that, to preserve the rule of law, there must not be political interference in the enforcement of the law”.
However, the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which introduced unexplained wealth orders, clearly states:
“The Court of Session may, on an application made by the Scottish Ministers, make an unexplained wealth order in respect of any property if the court is satisfied that each of the requirements for the making of the order is fulfilled.”
The legal claim for the Scottish Government to seek an unexplained wealth order is quite clear, so it begs the question: why is the Scottish Government so hesitant to use the powers that are available to it? I find it quite amazing that those powers have never been used in Scotland. We have at our disposal a means to target politically exposed persons or those involved with serious crime to explain how certain property ownership came about. I do not think that it is unreasonable that an action that could be used in Scotland is more fully used, and certainly in relation to Trump, given the massive question mark over so much of his financial affairs. I do not buy what the cabinet secretary says. We will support the motion, and I hope that the Government will look at the issue again.
16:52