Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 4:15 pm on 23 January 2003.
George Reid
Scottish National Party
Amendment 210 is in a group on its own.
Roseanna Cunningham
Scottish National Party
Amendment 210 would remove the offence of aggravated trespass from the law of Scotland.
Sections 68 and 69 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to which the amendment refers, relate directly to aggravated trespass. Section 68 created the offence of aggravated trespass. It states:
"A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land in the open air and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in ... does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—
(a) of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,
(b) of obstructing that activity, or
(c) of disrupting that activity."
Section 69 gave powers to the police to direct someone to leave land if they reasonably believed that that person was committing, had committed or intended to commit the offence of aggravated trespass. Anyone who fails to leave the land in those circumstances is guilty of an offence.
Why repeal the offence of aggravated trespass? We believe that it is obsolete, inflammatory and confused. It is obsolete because the legislation was a Tory measure that was originally aimed at protesters who were trying to prevent fox hunts. The banning of fox hunting in Scotland seems to render the offence obsolete. The provision does not appear to have been used often. Since 2001, two cases involving contraventions under section 68(1) have been reported to the procurator fiscal—I do not think that there were any cases at all before that—and trials have been fixed, but it seems that matters could have been dealt with under other provisions.
The provision is inflammatory, because the criminal offence of trespass in Scots law was imported to deal with a situation in England and is out of place with the tradition of the law of Scotland on access and trespass. It is confused, because the power for the police to direct people to leave land because they are regarded as trespassing is inappropriate in the context of the bill. Trespass has always been a problematic concept in Scotland. I do not know what it means in terms of the bill.
When the provision in the 1994 act was about to be introduced, I understand that senior police officers in Scotland advised against it, because they felt that existing powers were adequate to deal with any such activity. Of course, those powers are still available.
There is another good reason why we should repeal the provision: Labour, the SNP and the Liberals promised on the record to repeal it. The relevant sections of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 were strongly opposed by the Scottish Labour and Liberal parties and the SNP when they were dealt with at Westminster. In
"Although a member of the Faculty of Advocates and of the Scottish Bar, the Minister"— who was Lord James Douglas-Hamilton—
"quite clearly fails to appreciate that there is a distinctive legal system in Scotland. We may be a United Kingdom, but we are a United Kingdom that contains different legal systems. The Minister has not addressed that point.
In this Clause we are grafting on to the Scottish system measures that the Minister has made perfectly clear are not justified in terms of the mischief that the clause is meant to address. The Minister said that very few incidents have occurred in Scotland. He has not told the House where the pressure has come from within Scotland to bring forward such a measure. There have been some suggestions that the measure was forced upon the Scottish Office. There has been no openness whatsoever."
Sam Galbraith, who was a member at Westminster and later in the Scottish Parliament, said:
"I am sure that the Minister must be somewhat ashamed of himself in having to introduce the amendment tonight. He knows that it offends the tradition of Scottish law and also the Scottish tradition of access to the Scottish countryside, be it high in the mountains or low in the plains."
John McFall, who was then Labour home affairs spokesperson, said categorically:
"It is inappropriate to Scotland; it has no place in Scotland. When a Labour Government are elected we will make sure that the law is repealed."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 13 April 1994; Vol 241, c 364-79.]
The Labour Government was elected in 1997 and the Executive has been in power in Scotland since 1999. Let us repeal the law.
I move amendment 210.
Bill Aitken
Conservative
It was unclear from Roseanna Cunningham's comments whether she objected to the provision under discussion because it was a Tory measure or because its terms were objectionable. I am willing to accept her assertion that the 1994 measure has not been used frequently. Nevertheless, it presents adequate protection in the extreme cases that unfortunately occur on occasion. New age travellers can cause landowners chaos, mayhem, considerable annoyance and distress when their conduct is unjustifiable and they trespass to a degree that detracts from the landowner's amenity and genuinely concerns land users. On that basis, we believe that the 1994 act is adequate and we will not support Amendment 210.
Lord James Selkirk
Conservative
I mention my entry in the "Register of Members' Interests", but to the best of my knowledge I have no particular interest in the provision under discussion.
I will reply to Roseanna Cunningham's comments. The provision in the 1994 act was
Ross Finnie
Liberal Democrat
4:30,
23 January 2003
Amendment 210 mirrors an amendment that Stewart Stevenson lodged at stage 2, which the Justice 2 Committee rejected. I will rehearse again some of the arguments that were made then.
As is self-evident, amendment 210 would remove the offence of aggravated trespass and the powers of the police to direct people to leave land on which they are committing or intending to commit aggravated trespass or on which they are intimidating others. Subject to what I have to say, the provisions have to be retained. They are needed to ensure that law-abiding members of the public, in exercising their right of access, have the backing of the law if other people commit or intend to commit an offence.
The issue has nothing to do with the bill as drafted, but the discussion enables us to make clear what is meant by the exercise of responsible access rights for recreation and passage. Those who exercise those rights responsibly have nothing to fear. However, we cannot ignore those who are irresponsible and cause a public nuisance—to do so would be to leave the bill unbalanced.
Such behaviour must be addressed. We have done that through the provisions of—and the amendments to—the Public Order Act 1986 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Schedule 2 to the bill also amends other legislation that relates to the access provisions in part 1 of the bill. That is the correct way of proceeding. The bill is not the appropriate vehicle to consider the provisions of the public order acts. Accordingly, I ask Roseanna Cunningham to withdraw her amendment.
Roseanna Cunningham
Scottish National Party
The Minister was not at Westminster when the subject was debated. At that time, his party opposed the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. In summing up, I will simply repeat the words of John McFall, who, speaking for the Labour party, said of the measure:
"It is inappropriate to Scotland; it has no place in Scotland. When a Labour Government are elected we will make sure that the law is repealed."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 13 April 1994; Vol 241, c 364.]
Is what we have heard today the worth of a Labour promise?
George Reid
Scottish National Party
The question is, that Amendment 210 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
George Reid
Scottish National Party
There will be a Division.
Division number 48
For: Adam, Brian, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Harding, Mr Keith, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLeish, Henry, McLetchie, David, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Mundell, David, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Ben, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan, Young, John
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
The House of Commons is one of the houses of parliament. Here, elected MPs (elected by the "commons", i.e. the people) debate. In modern times, nearly all power resides in this house. In the commons are 650 MPs, as well as a speaker and three deputy speakers.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
The political party system in the English-speaking world evolved in the 17th century, during the fight over the ascension of James the Second to the Throne. James was a Catholic and a Stuart. Those who argued for Parliamentary supremacy were called Whigs, after a Scottish word whiggamore, meaning "horse-driver," applied to Protestant rebels. It was meant as an insult.
They were opposed by Tories, from the Irish word toraidhe (literally, "pursuer," but commonly applied to highwaymen and cow thieves). It was used — obviously derisively — to refer to those who supported the Crown.
By the mid 1700s, the words Tory and Whig were commonly used to describe two political groupings. Tories supported the Church of England, the Crown, and the country gentry, while Whigs supported the rights of religious dissent and the rising industrial bourgeoisie. In the 19th century, Whigs became Liberals; Tories became Conservatives.
Ministers make up the Government and almost all are members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. There are three main types of Minister. Departmental Ministers are in charge of Government Departments. The Government is divided into different Departments which have responsibilities for different areas. For example the Treasury is in charge of Government spending. Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet are generally called 'Secretary of State' but some have special titles such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ministers of State and Junior Ministers assist the ministers in charge of the department. They normally have responsibility for a particular area within the department and are sometimes given a title that reflects this - for example Minister of Transport.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
In a general election, each Constituency chooses an MP to represent them. MPs have a responsibility to represnt the views of the Constituency in the House of Commons. There are 650 Constituencies, and thus 650 MPs. A citizen of a Constituency is known as a Constituent
Ministers make up the Government and almost all are members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. There are three main types of Minister. Departmental Ministers are in charge of Government Departments. The Government is divided into different Departments which have responsibilities for different areas. For example the Treasury is in charge of Government spending. Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet are generally called 'Secretary of State' but some have special titles such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ministers of State and Junior Ministers assist the ministers in charge of the department. They normally have responsibility for a particular area within the department and are sometimes given a title that reflects this - for example Minister of Transport.
The House of Commons votes by dividing. Those voting Aye (yes) to any proposition walk through the division lobby to the right of the Speaker and those voting no through the lobby to the left. In each of the lobbies there are desks occupied by Clerks who tick Members' names off division lists as they pass through. Then at the exit doors the Members are counted by two Members acting as tellers. The Speaker calls for a vote by announcing "Clear the Lobbies". In the House of Lords "Clear the Bar" is called. Division Bells ring throughout the building and the police direct all Strangers to leave the vicinity of the Members’ Lobby. They also walk through the public rooms of the House shouting "division". MPs have eight minutes to get to the Division Lobby before the doors are closed. Members make their way to the Chamber, where Whips are on hand to remind the uncertain which way, if any, their party is voting. Meanwhile the Clerks who will take the names of those voting have taken their place at the high tables with the alphabetical lists of MPs' names on which ticks are made to record the vote. When the tellers are ready the counting process begins - the recording of names by the Clerk and the counting of heads by the tellers. When both lobbies have been counted and the figures entered on a card this is given to the Speaker who reads the figures and announces "So the Ayes [or Noes] have it". In the House of Lords the process is the same except that the Lobbies are called the Contents Lobby and the Not Contents Lobby. Unlike many other legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords have not adopted a mechanical or electronic means of voting. This was considered in 1998 but rejected. Divisions rarely take less than ten minutes and those where most Members are voting usually take about fifteen. Further information can be obtained from factsheet P9 at the UK Parliament site.
The House of Commons votes by dividing. Those voting Aye (yes) to any proposition walk through the division lobby to the right of the Speaker and those voting no through the lobby to the left. In each of the lobbies there are desks occupied by Clerks who tick Members' names off division lists as they pass through. Then at the exit doors the Members are counted by two Members acting as tellers. The Speaker calls for a vote by announcing "Clear the Lobbies". In the House of Lords "Clear the Bar" is called. Division Bells ring throughout the building and the police direct all Strangers to leave the vicinity of the Members’ Lobby. They also walk through the public rooms of the House shouting "division". MPs have eight minutes to get to the Division Lobby before the doors are closed. Members make their way to the Chamber, where Whips are on hand to remind the uncertain which way, if any, their party is voting. Meanwhile the Clerks who will take the names of those voting have taken their place at the high tables with the alphabetical lists of MPs' names on which ticks are made to record the vote. When the tellers are ready the counting process begins - the recording of names by the Clerk and the counting of heads by the tellers. When both lobbies have been counted and the figures entered on a card this is given to the Speaker who reads the figures and announces "So the Ayes [or Noes] have it". In the House of Lords the process is the same except that the Lobbies are called the Contents Lobby and the Not Contents Lobby. Unlike many other legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords have not adopted a mechanical or electronic means of voting. This was considered in 1998 but rejected. Divisions rarely take less than ten minutes and those where most Members are voting usually take about fifteen. Further information can be obtained from factsheet P9 at the UK Parliament site.
