Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Part of the debate – in the Scottish Parliament at 3:56 pm on 14 June 2000.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Donald Gorrie Donald Gorrie Liberal Democrat 3:56, 14 June 2000

I welcome the bill. It is a serious attempt to regulate what needed to be regulated. I have complete confidence in Jim Wallace as a man of great integrity and intelligence who will oversee its implementation very well, but the bill must stand up to being implemented by a different minister at a different time, and that person might share the more draconian attitude of the current Home Secretary at Westminster. We must be able to guard against that.

Gordon Jackson made a good speech in which he raised the point that several of us have made. It may ruin my political career if I use Latin, but I will quote a famous question posed by Juvenal:

"Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?"

But who is to guard the guards themselves? Who regulates the regulators? My fellow rebel, Margo MacDonald, advised me that it was okay to use Latin if I did not know the Gaelic. The serious point is this: who will control the over-enthusiastic police who are dead keen to pursue some people and go over the top in using their various methods to do so? The classic Liberal concern about civil liberties must be put forward.

Other members have pointed out the dangers of section 3(3)(d), which allows authorisation of covert intelligence sources for any other purpose

"which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Scottish Ministers."

A serious Liberal must be suspicious of the establishment. I enjoy the detective novels of Ian Rankin. His character Inspector Rebus is always investigating the evil-doings of the Edinburgh establishment and most of his novels deal with a huge plot by that establishment. I share Inspector Rebus's view: a lot of life involves a plot by the Edinburgh establishment. We must stop that establishment being in any position to get at people who are merely causing it some trouble. I fear that the subsection could be used inappropriately by a less happy Government in the future.

With respect, Jim Wallace did not deal adequately with John McAllion's point about football and preventing disorder at football matches. I can imagine over-enthusiastic police thinking that there might be a riot at a football match and setting up all sorts of surveillance to prevent it. It is obvious that we want to stop professional hooligans, but a story can easily be cooked up. For example, if there is an orange march—or a green march—the other side may threaten to disrupt it and surveillance may be set up to stop the whole thing. The threat of public disorder can be used as an excuse to stop reasonable activity.

There are many detailed issues to be resolved, but the bill is a good start and is on the right lines. I hope that the minister will consider carefully the various amendments that will arise at stage 2. The Executive is understandably dead keen to get its legislation passed untrammelled, but a bit of trammelling by committees is a good thing. So long as the minister accepts that, he will have made a good start. I have great confidence in him, personally, doing the right thing.