Contents
- Attendance
- Criminal Justice Bill
- Subordinate Legislation
Criminal Justice Bill
Good morning, and welcome to the 10th meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee in 2024.
Our first item of business is consideration of a legislative consent memorandum and a supplementary LCM for the United Kingdom Government’s Criminal Justice Bill as introduced. I refer members to paper 1. In particular, members should look at annexes A and B for details of the provisions in the bill that impact on devolved competences.
Members will wish to note that the Scottish Government is recommending consent, as set out in the memorandums.
Are members in a position to recommend to the Parliament that consent be given to the relevant provisions in the bill, or do members have questions that they would like answered before returning to the decision on the recommendation on a different day?
It would be helpful to get some more information on the implications of some of the clauses. I have a question about the “various bodies” that would authorise access to driver licence records. It would be helpful if the names of those bodies were set out, so that we knew what the provision actually meant.
I would have liked to see the note from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee before today. The timing is a little tight and I think that we need more information on the bill before I would be content to support the legislative consent memorandum. I have no objection to asking the minister to come to speak to us—that would depend on what other members think—but I would certainly not be content to sign this off without fully understanding the implications of the clauses containing provisions that require the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
On the face of it, it looks like clause 14 of the bill as introduced, concerning corporate liability, would include senior managers, which is quite a broad term. Who is regarded as being a senior manager? I am sure that that has all been considered and worked out, but what has been put before us is light on detail, and I would not be content to sign off on it without having a full understanding of it.
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?
There is a lot in there. It is helpful to have that set out. Does anyone else want to come in? If not, I will bring Stephen Imrie in to pick up on a couple of those points.
If that is a forthcoming amendment, I do not have information on whether the Scottish Government and the UK Government are in discussion about it. However, if such an amendment is forthcoming and there is a question around extending the impact of that amendment into Scotland, that would very likely trigger another supplementary legislative consent memorandum that would need to be lodged in the Scottish Parliament, referred to the committee and looked at a later date. I will try to keep the committee posted if any such amendments impact on devolved issues and you therefore have to look at that issue separately.
A question sprang to mind when I was listening to Russell Findlay. We already have specific legislation on child grooming. It would be helpful to know whether there is duplication there from the Scottish Government’s point of view. Criminal law is normally a matter for this Parliament, unless it is international organised crime. We need to be clear about why we would need offences that would be an aggravation of an existing offence. We need to know whether that gives the Crown the option of how the offence is charged, if you follow me. That may seem simple on the face of it, but devolved competence normally allows Scotland to decide how it wishes to proceed. I am sure that there are very good reasons for that, but we need to ask the question, because we certainly do not want any confusion about this.
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.
If there are no more questions, I thank members for their helpful feedback. In view of the range of questions and the significance of the bill—its proposed provisions are indeed extensive and we were quite late in receiving the DPLR Committee’s report—I am happy for us to take away the questions and points that have been raised. We will seek appropriate views and schedule another evidence session in our work programme to come back on the LCMs with a minister in a few weeks’ time. Are members content with that proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
Attendance