���˿���

In respect of one of the clauses, the need for it to be UK-wide relates to prohibiting the purchase and trade of pill presses. According to the Parliament website, the Scottish Government has been talking to the Home Office about that for at least two years. It would obviously create a big problem if pill presses were outlawed in the rest of the UK but not here, so I think that that one is straightforward.

I have comments on both SSIs; I will start with the one on firefighters that Katy Clark has just mentioned. I see that the Scottish Government has put a wrong date in it. It is a mistake, and it does not look like it will have any impact whatsoever, but the DPLR Committee has said to us that the date should be corrected. The date relates to death-in-service payments for firefighters. The Scottish Government has said that, even though the wrong date is on the order, any applications for payment would be honoured if they are received by what is considered to be the correct date. The Government’s position appears to be “trust us”—applications after the date on the order are not likely to happen and, if they were to happen, the Scottish Government would respect them. I think that that is in writing.

I wonder whether, for technical reasons and in line with what the DPLR Committee has asked, we should consider ensuring that the date is fixed before the SSI proceeds, or whether we are happy with the SSI as it is and that it is just a technical matter.

I turn to the SSI on sex offender notification. Essentially, it removes Tain from the list of police stations in which a registered sex offender notification requirement can be fulfilled. A Sunday Post investigation earlier this year found that there has been a significant rise in the number of registered sex offenders in the Highlands—it has gone up 50 per cent in two years. That is attributed to people who are on the registered sex offender list seeking to go somewhere where they are perhaps not known.

I note that, on page 7 of paper 2, the Scottish Government says that

“the local councillor ... has been informed”

of the change for the police station. It says “local councillor” in singular, but the ward of Tain in Easter Ross has three councillors, and I am curious to know whether they have all been consulted. I dare say that they would not particularly object to registered sex offenders no longer attending at their local police station. Perhaps more importantly, have the councillors in the police station area where those offenders are now to be directed been consulted? I do not want to slow the process, but I put that out there.

I understand Pauline McNeill’s concerns, and I have a few other points to make.

The UK Criminal Justice Bill is substantial. There are 79 clauses in the bill as introduced, and the Scottish Government is asking us to consent to six of them—clauses 1 to 4, 14 and 21. They relate to a variety of subjects, including organised crime, child exploitation, printed guns, devices used in vehicle theft and that kind of thing. I whole-heartedly agree with what those clauses do, and it is important to note that the papers cite the importance of UK-wide consistency in these matters and the potential repercussions for public safety if there were to be any divergence. It is good to see the two Governments working so effectively together.

However, I have outstanding questions on the remaining 73 clauses—one or two clauses in particular jump out. Politically, there will not be agreement between both Governments on all the matters. However, clause 23 of the bill as introduced creates a new statutory aggravating factor in respect of child grooming. On the face of it, I cannot see any cause to disagree with that, but the Scottish Government has not chosen to duplicate, replicate or adopt it—whatever the phrase is. I do not know its reasons for that.

My other point is that I understand that there is an amendment to the bill that relates to the prohibition of registered sex offenders changing their names, which is a hot issue. The Scottish Government has been asked about that issue and has spoken about it. Is the Scottish Government in discussion with the UK Government about adopting that measure at a later date?

No, I am content—we are in agreement. I am glad that we can look at those points.

The reason for the controls being brought in is to protect public safety after a spate of horrific attacks, some of which were fatal and some of which involved children. Our thoughts are with all those who have been harmed or lost their lives in those attacks.

We whole-heartedly welcome the Scottish Government finally coming to the right decision. I would like to know—was this a case of spectacularly poor judgment or dithering, or was it simply an opportunity to seek divergence from the rest of the UK?

For weeks if not months, the Scottish Government was warned by the UK Government, politicians in the Scottish Parliament, the media and experts that this was an inevitable consequence of the rest of the UK legislation.

You said in your opening statement that dog attacks are rare, but there have been two XL bully attacks in Scotland in the past month, one of which was just three days ago. In both those attacks, people were harmed, and both were so serious that Police Scotland had to use firearms to kill the animals. Reportedly, both of those dogs came from elsewhere in the UK. Do you therefore regret not acting quicker?

But they do not—that is the problem.

It is an exception. We did our own research. We asked all 32 councils, and we have received answers from around half of them. Aberdeenshire, West Dunbartonshire, East Ayrshire, Scottish Borders and Inverclyde all have just one dog warden each. Clackmannanshire has 0.2 dog wardens, which I assume is one dog warden working one day per week. Glasgow, despite its size and population, has one dog warden. Realistically, there is no way on earth—especially in the face of Scottish Government cuts to local authorities—that councils will increase those numbers any time soon, and they are not well placed to deal with the 1,200 dogs that are under control notices.

Sure, but the existing number of dog wardens is already insufficient. Do you not agree?

Is one dog warden all that is needed for the whole of Glasgow?