Chamber
Plenary, 27 Jun 2002
27 Jun 2002 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Police Reform Bill
No, that is not the case. The situation highlights the financial implications for local constabularies. I understand that it is costing Grampian police £200,000 a year to deal with that individual, which highlights both the complexity of the matter and its financial implications.
The question arises whether Westminster is using the best mechanism for closing that loophole by using a Sewel motion. The Police Reform Bill is a House of Lords bill; it is not a House of Commons bill. There is considerable uncertainty over the bill's timetable. I repeat that I am sure that all members recognise that that loophole should be closed, but the clerks who are dealing with the bill at Westminster have stated that it will be extremely difficult to ensure that the bill is passed before Westminster gets away for the summer recess. The loophole could be left open until October, when the House of Commons returns from the summer recess, and the Government has no control over the timetable because the House of Lords will deal with the final stage of the bill.
I am sure that the minister recognises that it is important to close the loophole quickly. We have dealt previously with similarly urgent matters by means of emergency legislation. We did so with the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999 and the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2002. We also had emergency legislation on the Erskine bridge tolls. If legislation for reinstating tolls on the Erskine bridge was considered an emergency matter, closing a loophole in dealing with sex offenders is an even greater priority. The minister should have introduced emergency legislation.
To say that there might be inconsistencies in the drafting of legislation in Scotland shows a lack of confidence in the Executive about being able to draft its legislation. Further, the Home Office has confirmed that drafting instructions, which detail exactly what has to be provided for, have been passed to the Executive. Therefore, the Executive has the information that would allow it to act.
Can the minister give members a guarantee that the loophole will be closed before Westminster rises for its summer recess? If not, is he prepared to come back to Parliament, when we return from the summer recess, to introduce emergency legislation that would allow us to close the loophole, which would ensure public confidence in how we deal with sex offenders in Scotland?
The question arises whether Westminster is using the best mechanism for closing that loophole by using a Sewel motion. The Police Reform Bill is a House of Lords bill; it is not a House of Commons bill. There is considerable uncertainty over the bill's timetable. I repeat that I am sure that all members recognise that that loophole should be closed, but the clerks who are dealing with the bill at Westminster have stated that it will be extremely difficult to ensure that the bill is passed before Westminster gets away for the summer recess. The loophole could be left open until October, when the House of Commons returns from the summer recess, and the Government has no control over the timetable because the House of Lords will deal with the final stage of the bill.
I am sure that the minister recognises that it is important to close the loophole quickly. We have dealt previously with similarly urgent matters by means of emergency legislation. We did so with the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999 and the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2002. We also had emergency legislation on the Erskine bridge tolls. If legislation for reinstating tolls on the Erskine bridge was considered an emergency matter, closing a loophole in dealing with sex offenders is an even greater priority. The minister should have introduced emergency legislation.
To say that there might be inconsistencies in the drafting of legislation in Scotland shows a lack of confidence in the Executive about being able to draft its legislation. Further, the Home Office has confirmed that drafting instructions, which detail exactly what has to be provided for, have been passed to the Executive. Therefore, the Executive has the information that would allow it to act.
Can the minister give members a guarantee that the loophole will be closed before Westminster rises for its summer recess? If not, is he prepared to come back to Parliament, when we return from the summer recess, to introduce emergency legislation that would allow us to close the loophole, which would ensure public confidence in how we deal with sex offenders in Scotland?
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
SNP
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3237, in the name of Jim Wallace, on the Police Reform Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. I call ...
The Deputy Minister for Justice (Dr Richard Simpson):
Lab
On 30 January, the Scottish Parliament approved a Sewel motion on the Police Reform Bill. Today's supplementary motion concerns some additional specific prov...
Brian Adam (North-East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Given the nature of the proposal, does the minister regard the matter as urgent? If it is urgent, would it not be better to deal with it in Scotland?
Dr Simpson:
Lab
I am grateful to the member for raising that highly specious point that is the basis of the SNP's opposition to the motion. If we dealt with this matter with...
Michael Matheson (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I cannot welcome the fact that we are debating the 34th Sewel motion in the Parliament, and the ninth Sewel motion on a devolved area that relates to crimina...
Mr Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab):
Lab
Get to the constitution.
Michael Matheson:
SNP
I ask the member to bear with me.The matter highlights not only the inefficiencies of the present legislation but the difficulty of dealing with sex offender...
Dr Simpson:
Lab
May I take it from the member's comments that, in an SNP-governed independent Scotland, the movement of UK citizens would be prohibited?
Michael Matheson:
SNP
No, that is not the case. The situation highlights the financial implications for local constabularies. I understand that it is costing Grampian police £200,...
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con):
Con
We strongly support the minister on the Sewel motion. I am sure that we were all concerned to read in the Daily Record of 17 June that people who were guilty...
Iain Smith (North-East Fife) (LD):
LD
I did not intend to speak in the debate, but I feel that I must respond to the SNP's contribution. The Liberal Democrats support the Sewel motion because we ...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
I, like Iain Smith, realise that the SNP has a fixed position of opposing every Sewel motion as a matter of supposed constitutional principle. The arguments ...
Brian Adam rose—
SNP
Pauline McNeill:
Lab
That is a point that Brian Adam does not seem to understand. The amendments to the Police Reform Bill are intended to change the law in two ways. First, they...
Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
Will Pauline McNeill give way?
Pauline McNeill:
Lab
I am not taking any interventions as a point of principle, because the SNP has no arguments.Under the new provisions, sheriffs will be able to hear an applic...
Michael Matheson rose—
SNP
Pauline McNeill:
Lab
It might be beyond Michael Matheson's wit, but it is not beyond the wit of the Scottish Executive ministers to discuss with Westminster how that bill could b...
Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I begin by apologising for missing the minister's opening remarks. I was delayed in getting to the chamber today, having returned from Shetland. I will take ...
Mr McNeil:
Lab
So?
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
One of the Labour members is shouting "So?" It is an extremely important point. The matter gave Grampian police an enormous headache. They received a phone c...
Mr McNeil:
Lab
Will Richard Lochhead give way?
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
Will the member let me finish the point that I am making? This is an enormous issue for Grampian police, who were given 24 hours' notice of the fact that Ste...
Mr McNeil:
Lab
Does the member not agree that the only issue for the SNP is how to get itself out of a hole? The SNP has consistently opposed Sewel motions, even when they ...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
I will return to the point that the member makes about Sewel motions. Today we are here primarily to debate an extremely important and sensitive issue relati...
Mr McNeil:
Lab
Has the SNP faced those concerns?
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
I ask the member to let me finish.We welcome any attempt to close a loophole and protect the public interest, but there are wider issues that the Parliament ...
Dr Simpson:
Lab
I welcome the contributions from two thirds of the chamber. The common sense that members have displayed in their interventions and speeches demonstrates tha...
Michael Matheson:
SNP
Will the minister take an intervention?
Dr Simpson:
Lab
No, I want to finish my point.The member should remember that although the Scottish Parliament is going into recess now, it is probable that the Westminster ...