³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I appreciate Mr Findlay’s irritation about the matter. The processes for the preparation of the orders are layered on layers of historical agreements and historical orders. The two errors that you have mentioned are either being addressed or they will be. My understanding is that the error related to this order is rooted in the original UK orders. Nonetheless, the errors will be addressed.

It is particularly complex that the order relates to the transfer of agreements over a period of a number of years into multiple orders that flow from the UK Government. However, I said that by way of context—I certainly ain’t pointing the finger at anyone in that regard.

Yes.

Of course: I am more than happy to do so, Mr Findlay. That matter was considered very carefully by the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport, Ms Todd. You will appreciate the wide-ranging nature of the UK Government’s Criminal Justice Bill. While many matters in the bill are considered by me, other specific matters covered by the bill are considered by other colleagues.

The matter was given very serious consideration by health colleagues. They will keep the particular issue under review, but they had considerable engagement on the matter with stakeholders, particularly those involved in implementing suicide prevention strategies. There were concerns about unintended consequences, such as potentially criminalising people who were merely trying to give support to people in distress. It is a complex and sensitive area, but I am advised that health ministers will keep the matter under review. They have concerns right now, but they will continue to consider the matter and see how issues evolve.

I very much welcome the opportunity to discuss the two legislative consent memoranda that have been lodged so far to give effect in Scotland to parts of the UK Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, which is a large and complex bill that covers numerous different policy areas.

Although we support the overall purpose of the bill to keep communities safe, we have not accepted every measure offered. In some cases, we already have our own legislation in place; in other cases, we simply do not see the need to legislate in our very different legislative and delivery landscape. However, where we could see benefit to Scotland, we have lodged an LCM and a supplementary LCM, and we have plans to lodge a supplementary LCM in the next few days and a further supplementary LCM when the UK Government tables additional amendments at the House of Lords report stage.

The Scottish Government proposes legislative consent to clauses 1 to 4, 16 and 28 of the bill, in so far as it makes provision within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

The first LCM that we have lodged relates to the provisions covering the criminal liability of bodies corporate and the provisions around access to driver licence records. The identification doctrine is a long-standing element of criminal law that allows for corporate liability in situations where a person representing the directing mind and will of an organisation has committed an offence.

Last year, the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament supported the codification of the doctrine for economic crimes under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 extending to Scotland. The limitation to economic crimes in the 2023 act related to the scope of the relevant legislation.

Clause 16 of the Criminal Justice Bill, as amended, does not make any changes to the substance of the codification. Rather, it extends it to all crimes rather than economic crimes only. Clause 27 clarifies which organisations—including Police Scotland—can access the driver data, and it enables the making of regulations to provide access to driver information held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for all policing or law enforcement purposes.

The first supplementary LCM covers the provisions in clauses 1 to 4 of the bill relating to articles used in organised crime and electronic devices for use in vehicle theft. Law enforcement agencies throughout the UK have raised concerns that there are limited legal options to address the rapidly evolving tools and technology exploited by serious criminals. They report that they are increasingly encountering individuals in possession of articles where there is a strong suspicion that they are being used for the purposes of serious crime.

The measures in the UK Government bill therefore seek to prohibit the possession of certain specific articles used in serious crime through the introduction of new criminal offences. Currently, the list of articles comprises vehicle concealments, templates for the three-dimensional—3D—printing of firearms and pill presses. I am particularly pleased to see the measure to control access to pill presses. The Scottish Government and many key stakeholders, including Police Scotland, have been calling for such measures for some time.

The Scottish Government recognises that, for the measures in the relevant clauses to be successful, they should be introduced consistently across the United Kingdom. Therefore, we support their introduction. The proposed list of articles will be amendable via secondary legislation to ensure that it keeps pace with the evolving threat. The bill therefore contains a statutory duty for the secretary of state to consult Scottish ministers before amending the list of articles, regardless of the reserved or devolved status of the article in question.

While I am here, let me tell you about the further supplementary LCM that will come forward very shortly. We had hoped that the relevant amendment would have been tabled in the House of Commons in sufficient time for us to lodge a second supplementary LCM in advance of this committee meeting. The amendment was finally tabled on 9 May, and we hope that a further supplementary LCM will be lodged in the next week. That further LCM is simply a minor technical amendment to add the new organised crime offences in the supplementary LCM mentioned above to the schedule for the proceeds of organised crime as being indicative of a criminal lifestyle. I am sure that the committee would wish to support that approach.

I am happy to take any questions.

Yes. We interrogate the figures and information that are provided to us.

The Government knowingly published a financial memorandum last June, based on the best information that we had at the time. The Government did not knowingly present information to this committee that was wrong.

No, I do not. I will get officials to talk about abstraction—

With respect, I am not going to be drawn on the deliberations of other committees.

Convener, to be utterly candid, being told that significant stakeholders have revised their costs is not music to my ears—although, in this instance, I accept the reasons for that—because, when people revise costs, they very rarely revise them downwards. Bearing in mind that, in real terms, over two years, we as a Government lose £0.5 billion of real worth in our spending power, every public pound is absolutely precious.

You will know that the initial understanding between my officials and Police Scotland was that, bearing in mind that there were existing training arrangements and an existing code of ethics, those costs would be absorbed. Police Scotland revised its position because it has taken constructive steps internally to understand more, and earlier, about the impacts and costs of legislation for Police Scotland as a whole. That is positive for the future and positive when it comes to the information that has been flushed out.

I would of course have preferred all that information to have been available before the financial memorandum was published, but it was not, because of the shared understanding that there were existing training arrangements—as I said, Police Scotland spends around £18 million on training—and an existing code. However, because of the detailed wording of the bill, which means that the code will be strengthened by being put on a statutory basis and that the duties of the chief constable will be strengthened, Police Scotland wants to strengthen its training arrangements. Bearing in mind some of the evidence that the Criminal Justice Committee is now hearing on the need for the bill, I welcome the fact that Police Scotland is committed to investing in training on the bill’s implementation.

I well and truly understand the need for parliamentary scrutiny at all stages of the process. I have looked closely at the Official Report of the meeting when my officials gave evidence to the committee and I received correspondence from the convener following the evidence session. I have carefully considered the issues that were raised. I am bound by the standing orders. I am also aware that the committee has had lengthy correspondence from the Minister for Parliamentary Business and that the permanent secretary will give evidence to the committee soon. As you would expect, if standing orders or procedures across the piece were to change, I would comply with those changes.