Chamber
Plenary, 14 Jun 2000
14 Jun 2000 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
I am not suggesting that for a second.
Members of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee questioned the police about the procedures that they plan to adopt in cases where surveillance powers have to be undertaken without foundation. I agree that covert operations are costly in terms of manpower and resources and that the police do not enter into them lightly. It is not all crouching behind steering wheels in smoke-filled cars, with junk food and with paper cups full of cold coffee, as portrayed on television. The point was well made by Assistant Chief Constable Pearson, that, in the pursuit of justice on behalf of our democracy, expense is a consideration, but not the overriding concern, in deciding to authorise covert activity.
The Parliament need not fear that the bill will provide the police with greater scope to undertake costly surveillance. We have been assured by all those who presented evidence, including the Law Society, that, far from increasing covert surveillance operations, the bill may restrict police activity in this area.
The Justice and Home Affairs Committee has been subject to time constraints in considering the draft bill with which we were presented. The idea of tandem legislation going through both Parliaments at about the same time would have been better served if we had received the proposals at the same time as our Westminster counterparts did, instead of having this rushed affair. I am sure that that point will be made with monotonous and increasing regularity.
If we are to comply fully with the ECHR, as the Government has committed us to doing, we must consider seriously the appointment of an independent surveillance commissioner, as recommended by Professor Alan Miller. Conservative members have some sympathy with that suggestion. Professor Miller was asked to assist the Parliament in considering this legislation as part of his work with the Scottish Human Rights Centre. Of all his recommendations, the proposal for the appointment of an independent surveillance commissioner is by far the most significant for ensuring our compliance with the ECHR. Professor Miller also suggested that the grounds for surveillance outlined in the bill were "too broad" and "too vague". We in the Conservative party believe that there is considerable merit in that observation.
The police gave evidence that they would undertake surveillance only in relation to groups that were "very extreme" or if
"there would be major disruption to public order."—[Official Report, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 15 May 2000; c 1230.]
However, a lighter note was struck by the committee convener, Ms Cunningham, who asked who those extremists might be. Could they be a group of people, or a party? What size would such a group be? Could it be a committee, or a Parliament? "It could be you"—as the lottery ad says. The good news that followed was that, under section 27(7), such persons would have to resort to violence or intend to extract "substantial financial gain". That was a relief, but we still lacked a proper definition. Clearly, definitions throughout the bill will require appropriately drafted amendments to clarify their meaning. That is particularly important for the definition of "serious crime". We look forward to playing a full and active part in preparing amendments when the time comes.
I remain unconvinced by the assurances of ACPOS that the bill will not risk placing any additional administrative burden on our police. However, I welcome the association's assurance that the bill will strike the perfect balance between protecting police officers and ensuring proper public accountability, without impinging on the police's ability to operate effectively. I also welcome the fact that the legislation will be particularly useful, if we are to believe Professor Miller, in reducing the incidence of police entrapment.
Of course, covert surveillance is not the sole preserve of the police. Society today has developed a very lucrative private sector, which needs to be regulated as much as, if not more than, our public investigation bodies. That is the clear message of the Law Society, which admits to being concerned that private sector investigations have the same implications for rights of privacy as operations regulated by this bill do. It is vital that those undertaking such investigations do so knowing where they stand in relation to the convention.
In his evidence, Professor Miller illustrated the benefits that could accrue from the establishment of an independent, authoritative human rights commission. Although this bill is not the appropriate vehicle for establishing such a body, we are pleased to note that the Scottish Executive is now to consult on the case for doing that.
On the Executive's apparent unwillingness to take any amendments to the bill, to which the minister has already referred, I associate myself and my Conservative colleagues with the remarks made in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's fourth report. Democracy is based on a parliamentary structure that ensures that parliamentarians receive expert evidence, on the basis of which they can propose amendments to improve legislation. Every amendment must be considered on its merits, and the Scottish Executive's view that changes to the bill are not in practice deliverable denies elected representatives an opportunity to deliver the best results for Scotland. In principle, the bill is worthy of delivery for the people of Scotland. It merely puts into statute rules and regulations for the police that they currently follow as guidelines. The police believe that compliance with the ECHR is desirable; the bill will assist them in delivering that compliance.
The Conservatives agree with the recommendations of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee that the general principles of the bill should be agreed to. We look forward to a fair, open and honest debate on the detail of the definitions and on whether a surveillance commissioner and a human rights commission should be appointed. After all, when we say that the police should get what they need to do the job, we mean it.
Members of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee questioned the police about the procedures that they plan to adopt in cases where surveillance powers have to be undertaken without foundation. I agree that covert operations are costly in terms of manpower and resources and that the police do not enter into them lightly. It is not all crouching behind steering wheels in smoke-filled cars, with junk food and with paper cups full of cold coffee, as portrayed on television. The point was well made by Assistant Chief Constable Pearson, that, in the pursuit of justice on behalf of our democracy, expense is a consideration, but not the overriding concern, in deciding to authorise covert activity.
The Parliament need not fear that the bill will provide the police with greater scope to undertake costly surveillance. We have been assured by all those who presented evidence, including the Law Society, that, far from increasing covert surveillance operations, the bill may restrict police activity in this area.
The Justice and Home Affairs Committee has been subject to time constraints in considering the draft bill with which we were presented. The idea of tandem legislation going through both Parliaments at about the same time would have been better served if we had received the proposals at the same time as our Westminster counterparts did, instead of having this rushed affair. I am sure that that point will be made with monotonous and increasing regularity.
If we are to comply fully with the ECHR, as the Government has committed us to doing, we must consider seriously the appointment of an independent surveillance commissioner, as recommended by Professor Alan Miller. Conservative members have some sympathy with that suggestion. Professor Miller was asked to assist the Parliament in considering this legislation as part of his work with the Scottish Human Rights Centre. Of all his recommendations, the proposal for the appointment of an independent surveillance commissioner is by far the most significant for ensuring our compliance with the ECHR. Professor Miller also suggested that the grounds for surveillance outlined in the bill were "too broad" and "too vague". We in the Conservative party believe that there is considerable merit in that observation.
The police gave evidence that they would undertake surveillance only in relation to groups that were "very extreme" or if
"there would be major disruption to public order."—[Official Report, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 15 May 2000; c 1230.]
However, a lighter note was struck by the committee convener, Ms Cunningham, who asked who those extremists might be. Could they be a group of people, or a party? What size would such a group be? Could it be a committee, or a Parliament? "It could be you"—as the lottery ad says. The good news that followed was that, under section 27(7), such persons would have to resort to violence or intend to extract "substantial financial gain". That was a relief, but we still lacked a proper definition. Clearly, definitions throughout the bill will require appropriately drafted amendments to clarify their meaning. That is particularly important for the definition of "serious crime". We look forward to playing a full and active part in preparing amendments when the time comes.
I remain unconvinced by the assurances of ACPOS that the bill will not risk placing any additional administrative burden on our police. However, I welcome the association's assurance that the bill will strike the perfect balance between protecting police officers and ensuring proper public accountability, without impinging on the police's ability to operate effectively. I also welcome the fact that the legislation will be particularly useful, if we are to believe Professor Miller, in reducing the incidence of police entrapment.
Of course, covert surveillance is not the sole preserve of the police. Society today has developed a very lucrative private sector, which needs to be regulated as much as, if not more than, our public investigation bodies. That is the clear message of the Law Society, which admits to being concerned that private sector investigations have the same implications for rights of privacy as operations regulated by this bill do. It is vital that those undertaking such investigations do so knowing where they stand in relation to the convention.
In his evidence, Professor Miller illustrated the benefits that could accrue from the establishment of an independent, authoritative human rights commission. Although this bill is not the appropriate vehicle for establishing such a body, we are pleased to note that the Scottish Executive is now to consult on the case for doing that.
On the Executive's apparent unwillingness to take any amendments to the bill, to which the minister has already referred, I associate myself and my Conservative colleagues with the remarks made in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's fourth report. Democracy is based on a parliamentary structure that ensures that parliamentarians receive expert evidence, on the basis of which they can propose amendments to improve legislation. Every amendment must be considered on its merits, and the Scottish Executive's view that changes to the bill are not in practice deliverable denies elected representatives an opportunity to deliver the best results for Scotland. In principle, the bill is worthy of delivery for the people of Scotland. It merely puts into statute rules and regulations for the police that they currently follow as guidelines. The police believe that compliance with the ECHR is desirable; the bill will assist them in delivering that compliance.
The Conservatives agree with the recommendations of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee that the general principles of the bill should be agreed to. We look forward to a fair, open and honest debate on the detail of the definitions and on whether a surveillance commissioner and a human rights commission should be appointed. After all, when we say that the police should get what they need to do the job, we mean it.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel):
NPA
Our main item of business is a debate on motion S1M-983, in the name of Mr Jim Wallace, on the general principles of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (...
The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice (Mr Jim Wallace):
LD
The principles that underpin the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill are designed to ensure that a range of measures that are necessary for th...
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
Once the minister has finished telling us what is in the bill and what is not in the bill, will he tell us how the status will change once the bill is implem...
Mr Wallace:
LD
As I tried to make clear, the bill does not give the police or any other public authority any new power. It puts into statute the things that will be require...
Mrs Margaret Ewing (Moray) (SNP):
SNP
I apologise for my lack of voice. Will the minister advise the Parliament what responsibilities it will be given in relation to HM Customs and Excise, which ...
Mr Wallace:
LD
I sympathise with Mrs Ewing. I know that she is struggling. We all wish her well and hope to see her restored to full voice.Members may recall that when Parl...
Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD):
LD
The police in this country have a long and undistinguished history of harassing groups thought to be politically dangerous, such as nationalist groups, anti-...
Mr Wallace:
LD
Perish the thought.I assure Mr Gorrie, and it will be clear when I describe the bill, that the authorisations refer to serious crime. Interruption. I trust t...
Gordon Jackson (Glasgow Govan) (Lab):
Lab
Sorry.
Mr Wallace:
LD
Making a political nuisance of oneself would not be a purpose to which the activities and operations covered by the bill would apply. I will say more about t...
Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
On the same point, I believe that in recent months there was a transfer of responsibility for the approval of phone tapping and other such activities from th...
Mr Wallace:
LD
I can confirm that I am not part of any approval process for the surveillance of politically active people in Scotland. The transfer referred to, from the Se...
Ms Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
Will the member give way?
Mr Wallace:
LD
For completeness I will continue, and then give way.Grounds for authorisation of covert human intelligence sources, set out in section 4(3), and for directed...
Ms MacDonald:
SNP
Given that the extent of that type of surveillance will be widened following the Schengen agreement on information to be shared among European countries, doe...
Mr Wallace:
LD
I am not sure I follow the point that is being made.
Ms MacDonald:
SNP
Can I make it clear then?
Mr Wallace:
LD
The member can try.
Ms MacDonald:
SNP
I wonder how the acting First Minister would feel if he heard that some Shetlanders were being monitored by intelligence services from another European fishi...
Mr Wallace:
LD
That is hypothetical beyond belief. We are talking about provisions to make our law compatible with the ECHR. Other countries—and the convention applies to a...
Phil Gallie:
Con
I am comforted, to an extent, by the minister's comments about criminal activity. The minister mentioned Europe, and the Euro 2000 competition is taking plac...
Mr Wallace:
LD
Sadly, I would be very surprised if there were terribly many Scottish fans in Europe; it would be far better if we were there, but regrettably we are not, an...
Mr John McAllion (Dundee East) (Lab):
Lab
The minister mentioned that covert human intelligence surveillance could be applied in response to the threat of public disorder. He will know that the recen...
Mr Wallace:
LD
That was something that was happening outside the United Kingdom, therefore I do not believe that it would fall within the purposes of the bill. The bill is ...
Mr McAllion:
Lab
I understand that the Parliament has nothing to do with what happens in Seattle, but the WTO could well choose Edinburgh for a conference. Would the powers i...
Mr Wallace:
LD
Ultimately, if anyone complained, it would be a matter for the tribunal to determine whether the purposes of the bill had been met.I will repeat where those ...
Dr Winnie Ewing (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
If any member of this chamber were to have their telephone interfered with, would the minister be informed?
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
That has to be the last intervention. The minister has been generous in giving way, but it is time to wind up.
Mr Wallace:
LD
The issue relating to the interception of communications is not covered by this bill; it is covered by the provisions in the Westminster bill. There would be...
Michael Matheson (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I am sure that, at first, many MSPs viewed this bill with suspicion and wanted nothing to do with it, particularly as its title abbreviates to RIP. However, ...