Official Report 467KB pdf
::Our next item of business is an evidence-taking session on a supplementary legislative consent memorandum, LCM-S6-57c, for the United Kingdom Government’s Crime and Policing Bill.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs remains with us for this item, and she is joined by her Scottish Government officials: Yvonne Edmond, international justice co-operation team; Kristy Adams, organised crime unit; Patrick Down, criminal law, procedure and sentencing team; and Siân Morland, child protection unit—a warm welcome to you all.
I refer members to paper 3. I intend to allow up to 25 minutes for this item, and I invite the cabinet secretary to make some opening remarks on the LCM.
::Thank you, convener. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the supplementary legislative consent memorandum that was lodged in December in relation to the additional proposals in the UK Government’s Crime and Policing Bill that require the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
I appeared at committee in October 2025 to give evidence on the LCMs that were lodged in May, June and August 2025. Following that, the Criminal Justice Committee recommended to the Parliament that consent be given for the provisions that were covered by those LCMs. At committee, I set out that further LCMs were anticipated. Since then, we have lodged a third supplementary LCM, on 19 December, covering offensive weapons, child criminal exploitation prevention orders, online child sexual abuse and pornographic images. A fourth supplementary LCM is anticipated covering the remote sale or letting of knives and the application of the definition of “law enforcement employer”.
I have recently addressed the questions that were raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in relation to some of the clauses that confer powers on UK ministers that may be exercised within devolved competence. We have taken a pragmatic approach to the issue wherever necessary and hope to see that reflected in the committee’s report. Where there are benefits to Scotland, the Scottish Government is happy to recommend support for legislative consent to the relevant provisions in the bill.
The bill covers a range of important topics, and I would like to draw the committee’s attention to some of the provisions.
For offensive weapons, changes extend to Scotland that are being made on a UK-wide basis. They relate to penalties that are available for certain offences. That includes increasing the maximum penalty that can be imposed on retailers who sell relevant items to people under the age of 18, or under the age of 16 if domestic knives are being sold. I hope that the committee will support that step. Ensuring that a robust approach is available to take against retailers who flout the law is important in helping to keep our communities safe.
There are also provisions that require remote sellers of knives to report bulk sales to the police. Again, that is for all nations in the UK, and it is a sensible preventative measure to help to keep communities safe.
The bill provides a new UK-wide offence to disrupt adults who criminally exploit children, supporting a UK-wide approach to disrupting child criminal exploitation. The offence was included in the second supplementary LCM, and there is an additional clause that provides further clarity around activity that needs to be proved to establish guilt for the offence. That was omitted from the LCM in error, and it has been included in the third supplementary LCM to rectify the omission.
As well as the new offence, the bill provides new child criminal exploitation prevention orders. Those civil orders are intended to protect children from being criminally exploited by adult perpetrators, and to prevent the adult from future offending.
There are several measures in the bill that are designed to better protect children from the spread of child sexual abuse material online. First, the bill creates a new offence that criminalises the possession, adaptation and distribution of artificial intelligence tools that are used to generate child sexual abuse material. Last month, the Internet Watch Foundation reported that last year was the worst on record for online child sexual abuse material. By extending that measure to Scotland, our priority is clear. We are committed to protecting children and preventing offenders from using AI to create that serious form of abuse.
Secondly, the bill introduces an offence covering the possession of advice or guidance—so-called paedophile manuals—that teach people how to create child sexual abuse material. That has two key purposes. It mirrors the offence that is already in place in England and Wales, and it updates the law so that those instructions also cover AI-generated material. That ensures that our legal framework keeps pace as offenders change their methods.
Finally, the bill introduces a technology-testing defence for designated bodies, such as AI developers and child safety charities. That allows them to safety test AI models to ensure that they cannot be used to generate child sexual abuse material, extreme pornography or non-consensual intimate images. That approach helps to ensure that products are safer before they reach the public, and to address risks proactively.
My final point on the online child sexual abuse and exploitation provisions is that stakeholders, including the national strategic group on child sexual abuse and exploitation, have shown strong interest in those measures, underlining the importance of extending them to Scotland. The national strategic group recognises the serious harm that children face online and the complexity of preventing it. That is also recognised by the Scottish Government.
Later today, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills will make a statement on our progress in protecting children and young people, which will also reflect our work on online safety. Those provisions represent an important step in ensuring that our criminal law keeps pace with evolving online threats.
I am aware of concerns that have been expressed in the Parliament about non-fatal strangulation and the normalisation of strangulation in sexual behaviour. Last year, the UK Government’s independent review of pornography, which was chaired by Baroness Bertin, highlighted the role of pornography depicting strangulation, which is widely available on the internet, in driving the normalisation of that behaviour. The bill seeks to address that by implementing the review’s recommendation to criminalise the possession or publication of pornographic images featuring strangulation or suffocation. The offence will apply across the whole of the UK.
The measures that I have outlined align with Scotland’s policy priorities, and the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament is essential if those measures are to take effect in Scotland. As I mentioned, we anticipate a further supplementary LCM.
I hope that that brief overview was helpful. As always, I am happy to answer questions.
::Thank you, cabinet secretary. I will kick off with a practical question that relates to the provisions on child criminal exploitation prevention orders, which sound very appropriate and reasonable. However, could there be situations in which they might overlap with, for example, child protection orders, which we are all familiar with and are used regularly in Scotland, or are the proposals on the new orders clearly defined as dealing with specific types of offending that would not necessarily apply to a regular CPO, if that makes sense?
::I will start, but I might ask Kristy Adams to come in.
The raison d’être of taking a UK-wide approach is based on recognition of the cross-border nature of some child criminal exploitation. We are all familiar with the fact that those who traffic people also operate on a cross-border basis.
Child criminal exploitation prevention orders vary in what they can do. An adult can be prohibited from doing anything that is described in the order, and it requires the adult to follow the restrictions that are imposed on them. The order must be in place for a defined period—a minimum of two years—or until a further order is granted.
The chief constable of Police Scotland will be able to apply for child criminal exploitation prevention orders. It is also worth noting that prosecutors can make an application for an order for an adult who has been convicted of any offence—it does not necessarily need to be a child criminal exploitation offence—or who has been acquitted through a special defence, has been found unfit for trial or has had successful appeals against their conviction.
There is potential for overlap, particularly in relation to human trafficking, but I do not think that that has been perceived as being particularly problematic. Such orders are another tool in the box, but I will check with Kristy Adams in case there are other relevant nuances.
I am not aware of any overlap between those orders and child protection orders, but, as the cabinet secretary stated, there is potential for overlap with human trafficking and exploitation prevention orders and risk orders. It is hoped that child criminal exploitation prevention orders will be more specific to the criminal offending of the adult. However, we can consider any overlap and provide more information to the committee if that would be of interest.
::That would be appreciated. Those answers have been helpful, because you have clarified that the proposed new child criminal exploitation prevention orders will be imposed on the adult, which is slightly different from the approach with which we are familiar with CPOs. However, any further information would be appreciated.
11:15
::This point might be slightly tangential, but I think that the cabinet secretary will understand why I am raising it. The cabinet secretary is content to consent to a new clause after clause 84 that concerns new offences of possession and publication of pornographic images that depict acts of strangulation or suffocation. I agree and am perfectly comfortable with those provisions.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of Fiona Drouet’s petition on non-fatal strangulation and of what she and many others want to happen in that regard. The petition concerns an offence of non-fatal strangulation, not the possession and publication of such images. However, given that I have this opportunity to question the cabinet secretary, what is her view on the proposal for such an offence? Were she to be back in the Government in session 7, would she be keen to take the proposal forward?
::As Mr Kerr will recall, because I think that he participated in it, there was a recent members’ business debate in which I spoke at length about that issue—to the extent that I was incurring the wrath of the Deputy Presiding Officer.
Mr Kerr will recall that I set out the legislative provision that exists in Scotland. I hope that I fairly acknowledged the arguments for a specific named offence, particularly in relation to data and public messaging, because there is a bit of a dearth of data on the issue. However, we want to ensure that there would not be any unintended consequences. One issue relates to consent, because someone cannot consent to such behaviour, and there are some differences in the law in England and Wales.
We will consult on the matter and on a range of other matters that could enhance protections for women and girls. If my memory serves me right, Mr Kerr has been asking questions about the consultation. All that I can say is that it is imminent, so he will not require to be patient for much longer.
::I am very grateful.
::No other members wish to ask questions. Do any members wish to indicate their views on the LCM before I move to the question of consent and any recommendations?
As they do not, is the committee content to recommend to the Parliament that consent should be given to the relevant provisions that are covered by LCM-S6-57c?
Members indicated agreement.
::Are members content to delegate responsibility to me and the clerks to approve a short factual report to the Parliament on the LCM?
Members indicated agreement.
::There will be a very brief suspension to allow for a change of officials.
11:18
Meeting suspended.
11:22
On resuming—
Previous
Subordinate Legislation