Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks for raising that. There are a couple of points to make here. First, time is against us—we are under pressure of time. I am assuming that, if there was an update regarding the Lord Advocate’s position on the matter, and if she felt it appropriate to share it with the committee or with the Government, she would do so. The key issue concerns timescales, unfortunately.

I thank committee members very much for raising those issues. We will ensure that they are included in the committee’s report.

On that note, the question is, that the committee agrees with the Scottish Government that the Scottish Parliament should not give its consent to the relevant provisions in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, as set out in the Scottish Government’s draft motion. Do members agree?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)

Abstentions

Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)

The issue will now move to the chamber for all members to debate, based on our report. With that, I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for attending this morning.

We will now have a short suspension while we wait for the next team to come in.

Good morning, and welcome to the 19th meeting in 2023 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have no apologies, and Fulton MacGregor joins us online.

Our first item of business is consideration of a supplementary legislative consent memorandum on the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill. I am pleased to welcome to the meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance, and her officials Clare McKinlay, who is a solicitor in the Scottish Government’s legal directorate, and Michael Halpin, who is defence policy manager in the directorate for safer communities.

I refer members to paper 1. I invite the cabinet secretary to make some opening remarks on the supplementary LCM, after which we will move to questions.

I remind members that we will be having a public evidence session next week on the issue of police officer suicide, which I hope will be an opportunity to raise some of the issues that Russell Findlay has outlined. I know that he is very interested in that particular issue.

I know that DBI has been an option for a number of years, and it is relatively straightforward. My understanding is that police officers can use DBI as a referral option for somebody they encounter who is experiencing poor mental health. Ultimately, that would normally be routed to the person’s GP, who would pick up the referral and engage with the person. There may be some other points of contact along that pathway. I know that it is considered to be a successful, user-friendly and well-established option. If it is helpful, and if members are happy to do so, we can ask for some more detail on DBI. I think it is quite an important tool in the toolbox overall.

Jamie, was your second point in relation to the enhanced mental health pathway?

On that note, we will move swiftly on.

Our next item of business is consideration of any final issues that we want to raise in our report on the supplementary LCM. Again, I will open up the meeting for members to raise any specific points.

One of the things that I would like to highlight in the report is the Scottish Government’s position that, where the UK Government intends to take powers to make secondary legislation in devolved areas, that must be accompanied by effective mechanisms to respect the devolution settlement and to recognise the responsibilities of Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament. Currently, the Scottish Parliament has no process for scrutinising that subordinate legislation. At this stage, it is not clear what information the Scottish Government will provide to the Parliament to facilitate such scrutiny.

I propose that we should make those points in our report. It is to be hoped that other members will agree.

Are members content for the committee to raise those points?

As there are no other questions, we will, as usual, move on to our next item of business, which is consideration of any specific issues that we would like to include in our final report on the supplementary LCM. For me, it would be a case of saying that the committee very much welcomes the Scottish Government’s position. It is an important step forward, and it provides clarity. Enforcement of the legislation will perhaps not be without its challenges, but there seems to be some agreement on the important role of data and evaluation.

Would any other member like to include any specific issues in our report? If there is nothing specific, we will move on.

Do members agree that the Scottish Parliament should give its consent to the relevant provisions in the Online Safety Bill, as set out in the Scottish Government’s draft motion?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members content to delegate to me the publication of a very short factual report on the outcome of our deliberations on the LCM?

Members indicated agreement.