³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Just one moment.

Right. My apologies, convener.

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.

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.

We accepted the figures from Police Scotland in March, and there had been substantive discussions since its written evidence to the committee in November. The figures were interrogated.

Thank you, convener. I am appreciative of the opportunity to join you all this morning and to answer any questions that you have. If you are content, I am more than happy to dispense with opening remarks, bearing in mind that you have heard from Scottish Government officials and I have written to the committee. I do not want to waste the committee’s valuable time in repeating what you already know. Therefore, convener, I am happy to go straight to questioning.

I therefore understand your role, remit and responsibilities in that regard very well. I of course have to acknowledge that the changes to the financial memorandum are significant. Would I have preferred what I know now to have been in the original presentation, along with the bill? Absolutely. My officials have narrated that the financial memorandum that was produced and published along with the bill last June was based, in accordance with standing orders, on the best information that was available at that time.

As the committee is aware, Police Scotland, which is a significant partner, reconsidered its position after the bill was published. I contend that that was for legitimate reasons. After significant scrutiny on behalf of the Government, we are accepting the information that Police Scotland and other partners presented. I acknowledge, however, that the change is not insignificant. Although it is a very small part of the overall policing budget of £1.55 billion, I am nonetheless acutely aware—as members of the committee are—that, right now, every pound in the public purse is precious.

In my view, the bill’s policy intentions—the fundamental change of taking an existing code of ethics and putting that in statute, and placing a new duty on the chief constable—have always been well communicated. I am confident that the policy intent of the bill was well explained and explored, in part because of the governance arrangements around the implementation of the Dame Elish Angiolini independent review on police misconduct and the complaints system, in which the bill is rooted. The bill is based on 35 of the legislative recommendations that Dame Elish made, and there were robust governance arrangements around implementing her non-legislative recommendations.

There was extensive communication and positive working together between the Government and Police Scotland on the implementation of Dame Elish’s work. Parliament was kept up to date with that via Government-initiated questions and other correspondence, principally—if I recall correctly—on a six-monthly basis. Police Scotland was led to reconsider its position over a period of time—it did not do so immediately—by the specific wording of the legislation.

I am sure that the committee will appreciate that the Government does not share a draft bill before it is introduced to Parliament. We discuss the policy intent. There is also the three-week period before the introduction of a bill when it lies with the Parliament and we do not discuss the written detail.