The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 757 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 March 2026
Jamie Hepburn
Cross-checking of different items of legislation is—
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 March 2026
Jamie Hepburn
I had not intended to say anything—this is more of an observation than anything else. I take on board the points that Mr Mountain made: it is perfectly legitimate to take a wider view on the bill. We need to remember that we are being asked to look at a narrow part of the bill in relation to legislative consent. It strikes me that we should make sure that we protect the independence of the Lord Advocate, which is something that we should all reflect on as important.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 March 2026
Jamie Hepburn
I am sorry, but does the cabinet secretary not have to move it first?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 March 2026
Jamie Hepburn
Okay. That is fine.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 March 2026
Jamie Hepburn
I am not looking for massive detail, but can we get some sense of what that looks like at this stage and then maybe you can follow up with a bit more detail in writing? Is there a wee bit more information that we can find out just now?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 March 2026
Jamie Hepburn
It strikes me that there are two ways of looking at this. I hear some colleagues wondering why, as the bill is not going to get royal assent until autumn, there is all this urgency just now. However, I would take the counter-view and go back to the point that we are being asked to give legislative consent on a very narrow basis. We are being asked to give some indication to the UK Government with regard to the interests of the Scottish Government, and the Scottish Parliament, in relation to devolved matters. The most fundamental issue in that respect is that of the Lord Advocate’s independence, and, on that basis, we are satisfied.
I would just reflect on the cabinet secretary’s point that the Parliament will return to this matter. If there are wider issues that impinge and touch on devolved competence in relation to the very legitimate concerns that Mr Mountain, in particular, and Liam Kerr have raised, this Parliament will have plenty of opportunity to say yea or nay in giving legislative consent on those other matters.
I completely understand people’s instinct that we still have time, but in my experience, the UK Government is not likely to say, “We’re just going to stop and wait until the Scottish Parliament has consented to this element.” We are just indicating that, as far as this narrow area is concerned, we are satisfied, but clearly we can return to the subject in due course. On that basis, I suggest that we indicate our support in this particular area at this time.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 March 2026
Jamie Hepburn
I might be reiterating the point, but that strikes me as a sensible way forward. The concern that has been raised probably strays slightly wider than the strict area that we are being asked to provide legislative consent to. I would be content for us to say, “We are happy to recommend legislative consent to this narrow area, but here are some wider issues around the bill that we think the Parliament still needs to reflect on.” That would be a perfectly legitimate and sensible thing for us to do.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 March 2026
Jamie Hepburn
What has happened is unfortunate, but I am inclined to recognise that it is unusual. I know from my own experience that things can go wrong, but it does not happen often.
When we recommended that the previous instrument be approved, we were reassured by the fact that the various offences that were being removed could still be prosecuted under common law and other legislation, but it would be useful to understand what will happen in future.
You have brought forward the SSI, and we all accept that it rectifies the particular problem. You have recognised the problem and let the committee know about it, which we all appreciate. The new SSI deals with the problem, which is welcome, but it would be useful to understand what will happen in future. The first question might be whether it would be better and safer to operate a presumption against removing offences, rather than looking at it the other way round and asking what we should remove. We should be reassured that an equivalent offence has superseded it and I understand that is what is happening.
I do not want to go into a lot of detail right now, minister, but maybe you could put it in writing that you are clear that this will not happen again because processes have changed. Mr Wyllie used the word “guardrails”. We can get some sense of what that might mean, but I would be reassured if we could get a bit more information about what steps and measures have been taken to use this as a learning experience to make sure that it will not happen again.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 March 2026
Jamie Hepburn
Will the Scottish Government’s legal directorate be more involved? It sounds to me as though the issue is that there has not been enough cross-reference to different forms of legislation.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 March 2026
Jamie Hepburn
What the hell are we feeding them?