Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will ask my officials to provide the details on that in a moment.

I wish to make the broader point that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s view on the bill is important, as you would expect. I go back to the point that the bill will have a reduced impact on the powers of the Lord Advocate, as the head of the independent prosecution service in Scotland. It is acknowledged that the provisions continue to encroach, but they are either no worse than the existing provisions or an improvement. It is important that we consider the context of current UK legislation when we are considering the bill. The removal of the immunity provisions addresses the point about incompatibility with the ECHR.

Do my officials want to come in? I do not know whether the question relates to policy or legal matters.

I am here to speak on the UK Government’s Crime and Policing Bill, to which new clauses have been added that again trigger the requirement for legislative consent. I appeared before the committee on 1 October last year to give evidence on LCMs that were lodged in May, June and August 2025. I then attended the committee for a second time last month, on 25 February, to give evidence on the supplementary LCM that was lodged in December 2025. Following that, the Criminal Justice Committee recommended to the Parliament that consent be given for the provisions that are covered by those LCMs.

At committee last month, I set out that a further supplementary LCM was anticipated. Following that, we lodged our fourth supplementary LCM on 2 March 2026. That LCM covers the issues of remote sale or letting of knives, as well as the application of the definition of “law enforcement employer” and the advisory lists for the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and the British Transport Police. The amendments bring benefits to Scotland, so the Scottish Government is happy to recommend that Parliament provides legislative consent to the relevant provisions in the bill.

Clauses 31 to 35 in the bill relate to knives and crossbows that are sold remotely. Remote sales include not only online sales but things such as mail order sales or sales by phone. Essentially, the concept of remote sales captures sales that are not made face to face—for example, sales that are not made in bricks-and-mortar shops. Age verification is a key element of knife and weapon sales, and that presents distinct challenges when a sale takes place remotely.

In addition to the challenge of verifying age when a sale takes place remotely, there is the process of delivery of the item, where an increased risk of bypassing age verification arises. The amendments to clauses 31 to 35 extend across all the nations of the UK so that there is one system in place for retailers, delivery firms and businesses operating as collection points. The effect of the amendments is to strengthen the specific requirements on age and identity verification at the point of remote sale and at the point of delivery or collection. The amendments provide the Scottish ministers with powers to prescribe by regulations steps that a retailer, delivery firm or collection point operator may take to verify a buyer’s age and identity.

In addition, a new offence of delivering or handing over a package containing a knife or crossbow to someone other than the buyer is created. That means that knives and crossbows can never be left with a neighbour, for example, or collected by someone other than the buyer—they must be delivered or handed over direct to the buyer. That strengthening of the requirements is needed to reduce the risks of weapons getting into the hands of underage individuals, and follows a recommendation from a UK Government-established independent review.

Although this area of law is devolved, the policy extends to Scotland, as we consider that it is a sensible approach to have UK-wide laws to ensure that robust enforcement can occur and to avoid any cross-border loopholes arising. That reflects the nature of the many retailers and delivery companies that operate in all the nations of the UK.

The amendment to clause 179 looks to include the term “law enforcement employer” so that it is consistently applied across clauses 173 to 178. The amendment to schedule 21 of the bill seeks to remove the requirement to include in the advisory list of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and the British Transport Police those civilian employees who are retired or who resigned before allegations came to light.

A number of amendments were also tabled that do not require the consent of the Scottish Parliament, because they are technical amendments to clauses that have been covered in previous LCMs. Those amendments remove the reasonable belief test from the child criminal exploitation offence, make minor drafting amendments to the provisions regarding child sexual abuse image generators, and make provisions for pre-commencement consultation on police access to driver licence information.

The measures in this fourth supplementary LCM align with Scotland’s policy priorities, and the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament is essential if the measures are to take effect in Scotland. I hope that that brief overview is helpful, convener.

Thank you very much, convener, and all other colleagues across the party divide. It has always been a good experience, if thorough and robust at times. It has been a pleasure to attend the committee.

That is an important point, convener, and we have continued to engage with the Crown Office on the matter. Obviously, the legislation relates specifically to past events that have taken place in Northern Ireland, and, of course, individuals from elsewhere in the UK could have been involved in those events.

As for events in Scotland—we have checked this with the Crown Office, which I believe has checked as far as it is possible to do so—no known deaths or major injuries have occurred in Scotland due to the troubles. Therefore, the impact on the Lord Advocate’s powers, for example, is believed to be minimal.

I have not engaged with Police Scotland directly, person to person, on this, but I believe that officials have. Again, I can check what information exists in the records.

That is no problem at all, convener, and we will, of course, do that, but it is important to emphasise that this is not a Scottish Government bill—it is a UK Government bill—and our active interest in it is how it encroaches on devolved matters or otherwise.

There will be further legislative consent motions, because the aim is to have royal assent around autumn this year.

I am aware that the veterans commissioners have engaged directly with the Northern Ireland Office on the effects of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. In November, the commissioners stated that UK ministers had indicated that there were

“further planned engagements with Ministers and senior officials”

to work on changes to the bill that

“will provide an improvement for the veteran community.”

Obviously, I am not involved in that or in control of it. Our current understanding is that the UK Government will introduce a further package of amendments at committee stage to build on the existing safeguards in the bill. The Government will consider those changes when they are made. Therefore, there will be further LCMs.

I hope that that reassures colleagues. Obviously, the committee will come to its own view, but my view is that we should proceed with the LCM today, because it is a very discrete ask. We need to welcome the improvement in relation to the Lord Advocate’s position and the removal of the immunity from prosecution provisions, which removes the ECHR concerns.

My final point is that the bill already includes protections that do not currently exist, and the UK Government has signalled that it will introduce amendments to build on the existing safeguards in the bill. I support proceeding with the LCM now, but I expect the Government to return to the committee in due course.

With the STP40 programme, which, for clarity, was under the Prisoners (Early Release) (Scotland) Act 2025, the anticipation was that it would reduce the population by up to 5 per cent but in a sustained manner. We know from work done by justice analytical services that, between February and November last year, the short-term prison population reduced by 8 per cent. Obviously, there was an additional decrease as a result of the current emergency early release programme. If we had not taken the action that we did with STP40, it is estimated that the prison population would be higher by between 260 and 390 prisoners. It has had an impact, but we always said that it would have an impact in relation to what the population would otherwise be.

When I gave the original statement, I made a political commitment in response to a question from the convener that we would, in due course, review STP30 if the Parliament agrees to it, in the same fashion that we have a legislative commitment to review STP40. I stand by that commitment.

The return to custody rate—which is different from the reoffending rate—for the first early emergency release programme was 13 per cent of 477 releases. I think that the exact figure was 57—is that correct, Linda Pollock?

For which group?