Hansard

I am tempted to say that if Margaret Smith comes to some harm in the next few days, we will know who is responsible.

In his opening remarks, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice stated that serious organised crime presents a major threat to Scotland's communities. I disagree. I think that it is the major threat. The evidence for that is perfectly clear. If it were not for the big-time criminals, we would not have the spin-offs that we see at all levels. Were it not for those at the top of the tree, there would not be the number of shambling drug abusers whom we see panhandling on the streets, there would not be as many women prostituting themselves to feed a drug habit, and not as much small-time property crime would be committed to get money for drugs. That highlights why we have to be so determined in combating those who are prepared to peddle human misery.

I would criticise the former Executive, the Government and indeed the Parliament under many headings, but I do not think that a fair analysis of the facts could lead us to say other than that there has been a determined effort to combat the problem. The problem is that we have to do more. We have all grown up with internationalism and we approve of it, but it has not come without problems. Businesses are now much more international in their outlook, and the way in which the drug barons and others carry on their illicit trade has a degree of sophistication that would make it an ideal model for study by Harvard Business School. The criminals are so sophisticated and so cunning—and they use every form of device that is available—that it is sometimes exceptionally difficult to combat them.

But combat them we must and, from what I have heard so far, I am sure that combat them we will, because failure to do so would have the most appalling consequences. That is why the Conservatives welcome enthusiastically the cabinet secretary's proposal to reduce seizure thresholds. Like Margaret Smith, I trust and am sure that that will not be yet another device to instigate conflict between the Westminster and Scottish Governments. We also support the cabinet secretary's plans to introduce a new offence. Again, that will have the unanimous support of the chamber.

We must look at ways of extending the battle against these people. As we are all aware, they are sophisticated and use all sorts of covers, such as taxi and security firms. We in turn have to become sufficiently sophisticated to combat them. To date, the operation of the SCDEA has been exceptionally good. We have seen signs of action, activity and success and the SCDEA and the Crown Office are to be congratulated on what has been achieved. Nevertheless, we must do much more.

On the operation of the agency, it was a matter of regret that we had to lose Graeme Pearson. Like Pauline McNeill, I pay public tribute to his outstanding pioneering contribution as the first director of the agency. It must also be said that some of the comments that were made subsequent to Graeme Pearson's departure were profoundly unhelpful. When those who are charged with maintaining law and order fall out among themselves, the only ones who are likely to benefit from such discord are those whom we seek to oppose—the bad guys. I hope that that lesson has been learned by all concerned.

That difficulty prompted me to wonder whether it is now necessary to look at the operation of the agency. I read with interest the Justice 2 Committee's report on the legislation that set up the SCDEA, which expressed concerns about the agency's level of autonomy and recommended that its director should be of chief constable status. It is worth looking at that again. It might be better if the SCDEA operated entirely autonomously, with its own budget and recruitment process. Chief constables will certainly have to be influenced to allow the SCDEA to recruit their brightest and best.

Although the McGraws and Stevensons are household names in Glasgow in particular, elsewhere in Scotland we have to combat the anonymous, shadowy figures who are making millions—in some cases, possibly billions—of pounds in international trade dealing in drugs, people trafficking, and counterfeit money. I am concerned about the level of resentment that Glasgow people in particular feel when they see people such as Stevenson and others who are involved in drug trafficking going to jail while their families are still living in million-pound houses and have a state-of-the-art Mercedes parked outside the door and holiday homes in Spain.

Of course, there have been successful recoveries, but I wonder whether we simply have to get a lot tougher. We should consider changing the onus of proof so that it no longer needs to be on the Crown. When someone has been convicted of drug dealing, has been given a significant prison sentence and has demonstrable assets, they should have to tell the Crown and the investigating authorities where that money came from. The onus of proof must be put on them. We require to go much further than we do at the moment. People who are unusually rich despite never having done a day's work in their life require to be pursued.