Chamber
Plenary, 07 Feb 2001
07 Feb 2001 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Criminal Justice and Police Bill
The Criminal Justice and Police Bill, currently being considered by the Westminster Parliament, introduces a range of measures to tackle crime and disorder. Its provisions would apply primarily to England and Wales but some would also apply to Scotland.
Some measures relate to reserved matters, for example, travel restriction orders for drug trafficking offenders and the organisation and personnel of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. There are three measures that are within the legislative competence of this Parliament but which we believe are best dealt with in the bill. Those concern: the disclosure of information for the purposes of criminal investigation and proceedings; the extension of seizure powers of certain bodies, such as Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, to allow material to be removed for sifting; and the execution in Scotland of warrants issued in England and Wales for certain materials. We are asking this Parliament today for its consent that those provisions are included in the bill to be considered at Westminster.
The proposals on information disclosure extend and rationalise the rules governing the disclosure of information that is needed for criminal investigations. They also create new disclosure provisions for the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise, which currently cannot share information, even in criminal investigations. At present, the Inland Revenue may, for example, obtain information about drug trafficking but be unable to disclose it to the police. Some disclosure provisions currently prevent information from being shared before the start of any criminal proceedings and therefore hamper the police investigation.
The bill would amend existing disclosure provisions, which are contained in a large number of existing statutes, some of which relate to devolved matters. The Parliament would have competence to legislate separately on the disclosure of information to detect and prevent crime for matters that are not reserved. However, the bill's aim is to standardise those disclosure provisions. That is best done across the UK to ensure the necessary consistency. The Executive therefore proposes that both reserved and devolved disclosure matters should be dealt with as a whole in the Westminster bill.
The proposals on powers of seizure would allow investigating officers to remove material from premises and individuals for sifting if that is not possible at the time of the search. For example, investigators could remove a large number of documents that they suspected included some for which they had a search warrant, and then go through the documents at their own premises to establish which ones they could seize. Although the Scottish police do not have those powers now, we do not propose that the provisions be extended to them. The current practice of sifting on the owner's premises or removing material with the owner's consent does not cause practical difficulties in Scotland.
However, the provisions in the bill also cover the powers of a number of bodies that operate UK-wide, such as HM Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue. There are also provisions affecting the powers of local authority officials, such as trading standards officers. The Executive accepts that those bodies and officials should have the same powers to do their job in Scotland as they would in the rest of the UK. There are also certain UK bodies, notably the Financial Services Authority, whose seizure powers are exercised through police constables. To preserve the UK-wide regime for those powers, the Executive proposes that they be exceptions to the general exclusion in the bill of Scottish police officers from the provisions.
The final provision allows the execution in Scotland of warrants issued in England and Wales for excluded and special procedure material—that is, material of a confidential nature, such as personal records, journalistic or commercial material. Those warrants can be obtained only from a circuit judge in England and Wales, and a loophole in the current law means that warrants from those judges cannot be enforced in Scotland. We do not have the same problem enforcing Scottish warrants in England and Wales.
The bill would therefore amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to allow such warrants to be executed in Scotland. Although, once again, it would have been possible for this Parliament to legislate, the Westminster bill is the simplest and most effective way of closing that loophole.
The Criminal Justice and Police Bill includes, of course, other substantive provisions that will not apply to Scotland. This motion simply ensures the closure of a loophole and avoids any risk of creating new ones in areas such as information disclosure. It is no more than commonsense co-operation between Parliaments in our common purpose of the fight against crime.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the provisions on information disclosure for criminal proceedings and powers of seizure contained in Parts II and III of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill currently before the UK Parliament; recognises the practical value of consistency across the United Kingdom for information disclosure for criminal investigation, and for powers of seizure as they relate to certain United Kingdom bodies and local authority officials, and agrees that the relevant provisions to achieve this end in this Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament; further notes that the Bill allows certain warrants issued in England and Wales to be executed in Scotland, recognises the importance of mutual execution of warrants for law enforcement, and agrees that the relevant provision to achieve this end in this Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament.
Some measures relate to reserved matters, for example, travel restriction orders for drug trafficking offenders and the organisation and personnel of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. There are three measures that are within the legislative competence of this Parliament but which we believe are best dealt with in the bill. Those concern: the disclosure of information for the purposes of criminal investigation and proceedings; the extension of seizure powers of certain bodies, such as Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, to allow material to be removed for sifting; and the execution in Scotland of warrants issued in England and Wales for certain materials. We are asking this Parliament today for its consent that those provisions are included in the bill to be considered at Westminster.
The proposals on information disclosure extend and rationalise the rules governing the disclosure of information that is needed for criminal investigations. They also create new disclosure provisions for the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise, which currently cannot share information, even in criminal investigations. At present, the Inland Revenue may, for example, obtain information about drug trafficking but be unable to disclose it to the police. Some disclosure provisions currently prevent information from being shared before the start of any criminal proceedings and therefore hamper the police investigation.
The bill would amend existing disclosure provisions, which are contained in a large number of existing statutes, some of which relate to devolved matters. The Parliament would have competence to legislate separately on the disclosure of information to detect and prevent crime for matters that are not reserved. However, the bill's aim is to standardise those disclosure provisions. That is best done across the UK to ensure the necessary consistency. The Executive therefore proposes that both reserved and devolved disclosure matters should be dealt with as a whole in the Westminster bill.
The proposals on powers of seizure would allow investigating officers to remove material from premises and individuals for sifting if that is not possible at the time of the search. For example, investigators could remove a large number of documents that they suspected included some for which they had a search warrant, and then go through the documents at their own premises to establish which ones they could seize. Although the Scottish police do not have those powers now, we do not propose that the provisions be extended to them. The current practice of sifting on the owner's premises or removing material with the owner's consent does not cause practical difficulties in Scotland.
However, the provisions in the bill also cover the powers of a number of bodies that operate UK-wide, such as HM Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue. There are also provisions affecting the powers of local authority officials, such as trading standards officers. The Executive accepts that those bodies and officials should have the same powers to do their job in Scotland as they would in the rest of the UK. There are also certain UK bodies, notably the Financial Services Authority, whose seizure powers are exercised through police constables. To preserve the UK-wide regime for those powers, the Executive proposes that they be exceptions to the general exclusion in the bill of Scottish police officers from the provisions.
The final provision allows the execution in Scotland of warrants issued in England and Wales for excluded and special procedure material—that is, material of a confidential nature, such as personal records, journalistic or commercial material. Those warrants can be obtained only from a circuit judge in England and Wales, and a loophole in the current law means that warrants from those judges cannot be enforced in Scotland. We do not have the same problem enforcing Scottish warrants in England and Wales.
The bill would therefore amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to allow such warrants to be executed in Scotland. Although, once again, it would have been possible for this Parliament to legislate, the Westminster bill is the simplest and most effective way of closing that loophole.
The Criminal Justice and Police Bill includes, of course, other substantive provisions that will not apply to Scotland. This motion simply ensures the closure of a loophole and avoids any risk of creating new ones in areas such as information disclosure. It is no more than commonsense co-operation between Parliaments in our common purpose of the fight against crime.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the provisions on information disclosure for criminal proceedings and powers of seizure contained in Parts II and III of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill currently before the UK Parliament; recognises the practical value of consistency across the United Kingdom for information disclosure for criminal investigation, and for powers of seizure as they relate to certain United Kingdom bodies and local authority officials, and agrees that the relevant provisions to achieve this end in this Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament; further notes that the Bill allows certain warrants issued in England and Wales to be executed in Scotland, recognises the importance of mutual execution of warrants for law enforcement, and agrees that the relevant provision to achieve this end in this Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel):
NPA
We now come to a short debate on motion S1M-1618, in the name of Jim Wallace, on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which is UK legislation. I invite Iain...
The Deputy Minister for Justice (Iain Gray):
Lab
The Criminal Justice and Police Bill, currently being considered by the Westminster Parliament, introduces a range of measures to tackle crime and disorder. ...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
This is a short debate and members have three minutes each for speeches.
Michael Matheson (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I regret the fact that, for the second week running, the Parliament is being asked to consider a Sewel motion, as a result of legislation going through Westm...
Gordon Jackson (Glasgow Govan) (Lab):
Lab
Will the member give way?
Michael Matheson:
SNP
I am sorry, but I have only three minutes.Part III of the bill has already raised concerns because of its human rights and civil liberties implications, as i...
Iain Gray:
Lab
Will the member give way?
Michael Matheson:
SNP
Time is against us.The motion fails to give us sufficient time to consider such matters in full. Earlier this afternoon, Des McNulty made a point of order on...
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
To a degree, today's debate is farcical. Although the bill contains many important measures, it is unlikely that the Labour Government will ever implement it...
Euan Robson (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD):
LD
I wish to add my support and that of my colleagues to the motion. We have reservations about the number of Sewel motions that are being moved, but a judgment...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Three members wish to speak, so if they stick to three minutes they should all get in.
Gordon Jackson (Glasgow Govan) (Lab):
Lab
I say to Michael Matheson that I do not think that Sewel motions should be used indiscriminately. I would be the last person in the chamber to suggest that s...
Michael Matheson rose—
SNP
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Gordon Jackson is in the last minute of his speech, so no interventions are allowed.
Gordon Jackson:
Lab
I am in my last 20 seconds.A great deal of the bill—such as on-the-spot penalties, provisions to deal with intimidation and child curfew orders—will not appl...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Time up.
Gordon Jackson:
Lab
Sometimes, we go our own way, but I think that the proposals are sensible and workable. We should support them.
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
The point that Michael Matheson made is that we have not had enough time for scrutiny. We are having only a half-hour debate. Everything that the Executive s...
Phil Gallie:
Con
Does Christine Grahame agree that the SNP sends members to the Westminster Parliament who have responsibilities for such issues? The Law Society of Scotland ...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
I thought that the Conservatives had come round to accepting devolution. The bill deals with devolved issues that involve the Scottish criminal justice syste...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Last minute.
Christine Grahame:
SNP
I am being quick—I have three minutes.The Financial Times said that the Law Society in England"was ‘very concerned' about the increased power the bill would ...
Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD):
LD
Following discussion at a group meeting with the Minister for Justice, I am happy to support the Sewel motion, but I will make two points. First, I have grea...
Iain Gray:
Lab
Michael Matheson made the point that the SNP has consistently opposed Sewel motions in this Parliament. That is true. It is manifest in this half-hour debate...
Michael Matheson:
SNP
I said that the SNP has "consistently raised concerns". I did not say "opposed".
Iain Gray:
Lab
My memory is that he said, "consistently opposed", but I am happy to concede the point. My point is that the Sewel motion is the crux of the debate for the S...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
That is not an appropriate remark, given that I did look at the substance. I went through the clauses where I had concerns as quickly as I could. As I said, ...
Iain Gray:
Lab
I think that if Mrs Grahame looks at the Official Report tomorrow she will find that Mr Matheson says that the SNP's concern is not with the content of this ...
Phil Gallie:
Con
Will the deputy minister explain why that has been excluded? Will not that create an extra complication? Should it be excluded?
Iain Gray:
Lab
The reason is simple and answers in part the SNP's criticisms. The police in Scotland have not brought any practical problem with that provision to our notic...