| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The 2006 Act extends the investigatory powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 to the director general of the SCDEA and revokes the powers exercised by the director general of the predecessor organisation, the SDEA. The order mirrors the 2006 Act by extending investigatory powers to the director general under the equivalent Westminster legislation, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. That will ensure that the director general of the SCDEA has parity with police forces and other law enforcement agencies when dealing with cross-border matters. The order
20 Mar 2007 : Column GC194
The 2006 Act also provides for football banning orders in Scotland to counter football-related crime. The 2006 Act allows Scottish courts to impose football banning orders on individuals convicted of a football-related offence, instead of, or in addition to, any sentence handed down by the court. This order will give police and courts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland powers to enforce Scottish banning orders. Where a person is subject to a Scottish football banning order and breaches it in England, Wales or Northern Ireland they will commit an offence. This mitigates the need for multiple banning orders to be taken out in each of the jurisdictions against any one individual and provides for a robust UK-wide regime for tackling cross-Border football-related crime.
I hope noble Lords will agree that these orders are a sensible use of the powers in the Scotland Act and that the practical result is to be welcomed. I commend them to the Committee.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2007.—(Baroness Morgan of Drefelin.)
The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for giving such a full explanation of these measures before the Committee. I gather that she is already an old hand at taking these Front-Bench presentation positions and I look forward to having my knowledge and understanding increased as we talk across some of the Scottish elements that come through these days.
One has to wonder why the legal name of the Scottish Tourist Board has to be changed when a new marketing brand is desired. It seems to me that marketing brands are a bit like the suburban housewife who likes changing the wallpaper. I wonder whether there is a body called “VisitEngland” with which the newly-named body will link up to make a more unified presentation for the United Kingdom. Perhaps England has area tourist boards, whereas the Scottish area tourist boards have been done away with.
The measure is fairly innocuous, but tourism in Scotland is an important topic, considering that 9 per cent of employment is in that industry and a great deal of investment and encouragement is directed at improving tourism. Noble Lords will know that tourism currently generates some £4.2 billion for the Scottish economy. I was reading the current report of the consideration of these measures in another place; it was either a misprint or a slip of the tongue on behalf of my honourable friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, when he said that the tourism industry generated £46 billion for the Scottish economy. If that were true, I have a funny feeling that Mr Alex Salmond would not be looking, as he is, for the oil revenues to be added to the Scottish block grant.
In tourism we love the English—despite many of the rather hostile things that Scots can be accused of—because 86 per cent of our visitors come from the
20 Mar 2007 : Column GC195
The second order on the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act is a good measure and has generally been welcomed by Conservatives north of the Border. The successful separation of law and law enforcement has been a great feature of our Union, but modern crime and law infringement has become very sophisticated and powerful. As noble Lords are probably aware, drug crime is a great problem north of the Border and identified drug crime has increased by 46 per cent in the past few years. So we need measures that open up cross-Border co-operation and enforcement—not just between Scotland and England, but between the United Kingdom and other countries. The ability to share information is important.
I thought perhaps that a few more interested bodies might have attended this Grand Committee, given that we were talking about football banning orders—and I know that many noble Lords have much enthusiasm for football.
I was amused to notice in the order that if a person has,
of a football banning order, he can be excused. However, one wonders at that, given that there are many keen, imaginative minds in football; and while some of the excuses might be rather far-fetched, the provision states “reasonable”, after all. Someone could say that he just happened to be on a bus that was going in a certain direction. Much will depend on the extent of the banning order. It would be interesting to know if the Minister knows to what degree geographical areas will be covered by the banning orders, or will they just cover the area near the match itself?
Lord Teverson: I, too, congratulate the Minister on getting through all those acronyms at such a speed, which I probably would not have managed at all. I have very few comments. Exactly as their titles state, these orders are consequential provisions and modifications on decisions that have been taken by the Scottish Parliament on devolved matters and simply make the adjustments that are needed in UK statute. We support them fully and see them very much as tidying up issues of Scottish devolved responsibility—that is our only role.
I must admit that I was interested to see that the name change to VisitScotland affected legislation regarding the Greater London Authority and the exemptions list in the Financial Services and Markets Act. I wondered whether that was carte blanche for members of VisitScotland to go off to start all sorts of derivatives and options markets without interference by the Financial Services Authority. I am sure that that is not the case.
20 Mar 2007 : Column GC196
On the police order, I must admit that I did not realise that the Civil Nuclear Police Authority actually existed, so this has been a most educative process. I support these orders.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I agree with both of the previous speakers that these orders are benign and necessary. I want to ask the Minister one question, if she does not mind. The second order mentions agreements between the partners and agencies north and south of the Border in order to get the issues that arise from devolution sorted out. We are coming to a situation where it is possible that there will be a different political party in power in the Scottish Parliament to that at Westminster, which means that there will be considerable strain on such agreements—much more than there is at the moment.
We all recognise that. Personally, I think that the Scotland Act is standing up well to the stresses and strains of events as they move forward; but as we develop such agreements it will be important that they stand. Can the Minister tell us whether those agreements are enforceable? Are they written agreements to which people have committed themselves? How will they stand up if there is a strain in the coming years imposed by having different political parties in power? She probably understands what I mean. It is important that the arrangements continue to work smoothly, particularly in relation to the police and the new police complaints commissioner in Scotland and how his or her arrangements will work south of the Border—and in relation to police pensions.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I thank noble Lords for their kind welcome and their kind words about my first appearance at the Dispatch Box on a Scottish matter. As a Celt, I am proud to be speaking on Scottish and Welsh matters and this has been a very interesting introduction for me, too. Like the noble Duke, I found this an instructive beginning.
6.15 pm
The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, asked about “VisitEngland”. I am advised that there is no “VisitEngland” in existence, but there is an Enjoy England and a VisitBritain. I am not sure whether we will get secondary legislation if there are more name changes. The noble Duke also asked about the legal name change. The orders before us simply provide up-to-date references to VisitScotland to replace the redundant references to the Scottish Tourist Board; they are about keeping UK legislation neat and tidy, up to date and properly consolidated—that might not be exactly the right word; perhaps “properly in tune”—with Scottish legislation.
On tourism revenue, the noble Duke is right to stress the importance to the Scottish economy of tourism. I am advised that for 2006-07, VisitScotland has set a target of achieving £30 for every pound it spends on tourism marketing in UK campaigns, and £23 of additional tourism income for every pound spent marketing Scotland in Europe. Although those are very specific targets, I hope that the noble Duke
20 Mar 2007 : Column GC197
The noble Duke asked about football banning orders and the area that they apply to. It is fair to say that these banning orders apply to football matches, but they can also apply to areas that are known to be flashpoints where football hooligans, for want of a better phrase, gather in order to engage in violence and intimidation. The 2006 Act provided for football banning orders that would ban a person from all regulated football matches. It means that a breach of a football banning order imposed by Scottish courts will be an offence under English and Welsh law. Anyone subject to a Scottish FBO who attends a regulated football match in the UK will commit an offence, and can be fined and imprisoned for up to six months. I hope that answers his question.
I shall pick up on the noble Baroness’s important point about agreements. In my introduction I talked about lots of different organisations and the importance of them sharing information in cross-border collaboration. It is fair to say that the Government believe that the current structure of devolution is working well, and fully expect agreements between police authorities to continue regardless of the political make-up of the Scottish Executive or the UK Government. We are talking about agreements that are set at an operational level, not a political level. The experience and the time put into developing these working relationships mean that they will stand the test of time. I hope that I can offer reassurance on that.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Are those agreements in writing? I do not know whether they are enforceable, but are they written agreements?
20 Mar 2007 : Column GC198
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I am advised that they are in writing and enforceable. If the noble Baroness would like me to write to her in more detail, I should be happy to do so. She asks an important question.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am grateful. This matter is critical in making these agreements stand. Perhaps the noble Baroness could send copies to other noble Lords who have spoken.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I would be delighted to do that. I hope that these orders meet the approval of the Committee and I commend them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2007
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2007.—(Baroness Morgan of Drefelin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): That completes the business before the Grand Committee today. The Committee stands adjourned.
- The Committee adjourned at 6.20 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |