Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not sure that the policy around the power that HMICS has recommended that the chief constable should have in certain high-threshold circumstances in and around dismissal would be a matter for the Lord Advocate. However, work is being done at pace, and 58 of Elish Angiolini’s non-legislative recommendations have been implemented. Further, HMICS carries out substantial reviews. It has done one on vetting, and we spoke earlier about the one on organisational culture. Primarily, it makes recommendations to police and partners, and occasionally to the Government.

It is for the SPA to hold Police Scotland to account. Much of the SPA’s proceedings are held in public, and I also engage with the SPA and Police Scotland, collectively and individually. Kevin Lee might want to add something to that.

The bill helps with it in that, if the PIRC makes recommendations to Police Scotland or the SPA, those recommendations can be published. Where there are time limits, it is for the chief constable to give an initial response and a progress update. I think that an initial response to recommendations should be made within eight weeks but a progress update can be given within 12 months.

Do you mean just now?

The 12-month timescale is not in the bill. It is not a hard and fast statutory requirement. It is for the PIRC to make a judgment on public interest and fairness. It needs to be a rounded decision based on all the facts and circumstances.

Is there anything that you would like to add, Steven?

It is a professional judgment made by the PIRC on the merits and details of the case and what is in the public interest.

It is a different threshold.

Yes. A criminal matter has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

No. If I have not already followed that up in writing to this committee, I am happy to do that, but I went through the timeline, and what I said should be in the Official Report of the Finance and Public Administration Committee meeting that I attended.

The bill was introduced in June 2023. In autumn, my officials were told informally that policing partners were doing some work to revise the costs, because now that they had seen the text of the bill, they would need to be revised.

The evidence of the policing partners was published on 8 November last year, and my officials were aware of it on 6 November. As I said to the finance committee, I do not just accept what people tell me something is going to cost; I expect my officials to robustly examine it.

In March of this year, we got to the point at which the Government accepted the revised costs. The financial memorandum was the best estimate based on the information that I and my officials had at the time.

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.

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 brought forward an LCM and a supplementary LCM, and we have plans to bring forward 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.