Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Part of the debate – in the Scottish Parliament at 4:54 pm on 14 June 2000.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Angus MacKay Angus MacKay Labour 4:54, 14 June 2000

This has been a wide-ranging debate. A number of interesting speeches have been made, but there have also been a number of speeches that, to be frank, bore no relation to the bill that is before us. That is, to some extent, understandable, because this is a technical piece of legislation that deals with complex areas. None the less, it is appropriate that all the issues that members see as important should have been given an airing today.

Many useful comments have been made in the debate, particularly by members of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee. The Executive is grateful to those committees for their careful and thoughtful consideration of the bill at short notice. I wish to add my thanks to that which has already been expressed today in that regard. It is appropriate that I should also put on record my thanks to the witnesses who gave evidence on the bill: representatives of the Law Society of Scotland, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and Professor Alan Miller of the Scottish Human Rights Centre. The expert contribution of those witnesses has been invaluable in the deliberation of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee in this technical area. Such informed contribution is essential if we are to ensure high-quality legislation.

Throughout stages 2 and 3 of the bill, we must attempt to move away from some of the hyperbole that we have heard today. On the one hand we have heard about MI5 plotting to undermine Harold Wilson and on the other we have heard that the current Labour Government is responsible for additional phone taps under MI5 for the purposes of I do not know what. We should acknowledge that important work needs to take place between those two poles if we are properly to protect the rights and interests of all the citizens of this country.

Before I address in detail some of the issues that have been raised today, I wish to restate the main purposes of the bill, which were to some extent lost sight of in parts of the debate. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill protects important human rights by ensuring that the use of the techniques that we have been discussing is compatible with the European convention on human rights.

I should reiterate that the bill does not introduce any new powers—that important point must be understood. It imposes controls on techniques currently used by bodies such as the police and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. It does not deal with the security services. The legislation that we are discussing is vital to protecting the use of those techniques by law enforcement agencies in coming to grips with organisations and activities over which—as I am sure every member of the chamber would agree—we wish to see effective law enforcement. I am thinking especially of serious organised crime and terrorist activities. The bill will allow surveillance to remain an important tool in the fight against serious crime, today and in future.

I acknowledge that, in the context of this debate, it is impossible to do justice to all the issues that have been raised in anything like the detail that they deserve. That is a matter for stage 2. However, I wish to address some of those issues now.

I recognise that the timetabling of the bill imposed heavy constraints on the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, a committee with which I have had substantial dealings and which I recognise is under heavy strain. The UK Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill had to be introduced earlier in the year—in February. That bill is three times the size of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill and contains provisions establishing controversial new powers in areas such as e-mail and encryption. The bill that we are discussing does not deal with those areas.

If the UK bill had not been introduced when it was, there would have been little chance that it would have been implemented by 2 October, when the Human Rights Act 1998 comes into force. The legislation was introduced at the Westminster Parliament to ensure compliance by October. We would have preferred the Scottish bill to have been introduced at an earlier stage. I am sure that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and the chamber feel the same. We regret that Parliament has had to conduct its scrutiny more quickly than would have been desirable.

The reason for the delay was the need to establish beyond all doubt which parts of the legislation were within the legislative competence of the Parliament. As the Deputy First Minister explained during the debate on the Sewel motion, many of the activities were on the borderlines of legislative competence. That fact has been reflected in the confusion in today's debate. At the same time, we recognised that powerful criminals would be likely to use considerable legal resources to challenge evidence produced using those techniques. It was important, therefore, that the legislation should be watertight. We believe that we have ensured that it is; the delay, although unfortunate, was therefore used to good effect. Lyndsay McIntosh raised that concern, and I hope that my comments go some way towards explaining why we are in the position that we are in.

Phil Gallie asked about change as a result of the bill. The bill does not provide any new powers to do any new things; it puts in place a statutory authorising process simply to allow the police to meet ECHR obligations when the Human Rights Act 1998 is fully in force. The bill will codify existing police practices. It will not shackle the activities of the police; it simply creates a proper and appropriate legislative framework within which those activities can continue to take place.

Margo MacDonald asked about alleged phone tapping of constituents and oversight of the way in which powers are used. She recognised that these matters are reserved. As for oversight of the operation of the Scottish bill, that will be the responsibility of the surveillance commissioner, whose annual report will be laid before this Parliament. It will be for this Parliament to decide how it chooses to deal with that report.

Alex Neil went on to raise the issue of oversight by the Scottish Parliament itself. The UK Intelligence and Security Committee does not oversee use of powers under the equivalent legislation in England and Wales; that is done by the intelligence, security and interception services commissioners. Surveillance commissioners will provide parallel oversight for the Scottish bill and will lay their conclusions before Parliament. There will therefore be a line of accountability.