 Good morning and welcome to the 10th meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee in 2024. There are no apologies this morning and our first item of business is the consideration of a legislative consent memorandum and a supplementary memorandum for the UK Government's Criminal Justice Bill and I refer members to paper 1. In particular, members should look at annexes A and B for details of the provisions in the bill that impact on devolved competences. Members will wish to know that the Scottish Government is recommending consent as set out in the memorandums. So can I now invite views from members on whether you are in a position to consider a recommendation on consent at this point or if you have questions that you would like answered first, then we will return to the recommendation on a different day? We should help to get some more information on some of the clauses and the implications of it. One of the questions that I had was the various bodies that, in relation to what clause 14 there was about access to driver's licenses. It would have been more helpful if we had set out what the various bodies were for what we knew what that meant. I would be fair to have seen the note from the Delegated Legislative Reform Committee before today, so I think that the timing is a little bit tight. So I certainly think that we need more information on this before I would be content to support the LCM. I have no objection depending on what other members think to ask in the minister to come, but I certainly would not be content to sign up without fully understanding the implications of both clauses. On the face of it, it looks like the one in corporate liability in clause 14 would include senior managers. That is quite a broad term. I mean, who is regarded as a senior manager? I mean, I am sure that this is all being examined and worked out, but what we have been put in front of us is very light in terms of detail. We have been asked to sign something off, so I would not be content without fully understanding of it. I understand Pauline's concerns, but I have a few other points. I think that, if I understand it correctly, the UK criminal justice bill is substantial. There are 79 clauses. The Scottish Government is asking us to adopt six of those today, numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 14 and 21. They relate to a variety of subjects involving organised crime, child exploitation, printed guns, devices used in vehicles and that kind of thing. I mean, I wholeheartedly agree with what those clauses do, and it is important to note that the papers cite the importance of UK-wide consistency in these matters and the risk to potential repercussions in terms of public safety if there was any divergence. It is good to see that the two Governments are working so effectively together. However, what I think the outstanding questions are for me are of the 79 clauses of the outstanding 73. There is one or two that certainly jump out politically. There might not be agreement between both Governments in respect of all of it, but there is one clause 23 that creates a new statutory aggravating factor in respect of child grooming. On the face of it, I cannot see any cause to disagree. It might be the reasons why the Scottish Government has not chosen to duplicate or replicate that or adopt whatever the phrase is. The other thing is that I understand that there is an amendment to the UK Government legislation relating to the prohibition of registered sex offenders changing their names, which is a bit of a hot issue, and it is something that the Scottish Government has been asked about and has spoken about. Therefore, it might be for a later date, but I wonder whether the Scottish Government is in discussion with the UK Government about potentially adopting that a later date? That is helpful to have that set out. Anyone else want to come in? If not, I think Stephen, I will just bring you in just to pick up on a couple of those points. Just to maybe give Deputy convener a little bit more information there. If it is a forthcoming amendment, I do not have information at the moment whether the Scottish Government is in discussion with the UK Government about that amendment, but if it is and if there is a question about extending the impact of that amendment into Scotland, that would very likely trigger another supplementary legislative memorandum that would need to be lodged in the Scottish Parliament referred to this committee and looked at on a later date. I will try to keep the committee posted that if any amendments such as that do impact on devolved issues, you will have to look at that separately. Just one other question springs to mind when I was listening to Russell Findlay. Some of it seems to be where we already have law on child grooming, so we have a specific legislation. It would be helpful to know from the Scottish Government's point of view whether there is duplication here. My question is whether criminal law is normal for this Parliament unless it is international organised crime. We need to be clear as well why we would need an aggravation of an existing offence. I think that we need to know whether that will give the crown the option of how it is charged. If you follow me, it may seem simple on the face of it, but normally devolved competence allows Scotland to decide how it is to proceed. I am sure that there are very good reasons for this content, but again we need to ask the question, because we certainly do not want any confusion around that. Just in respect of one of those clauses, the need for it to be UK-wide relates to pill presses and prohibiting their purchase and trade or whatever. That is something that the Scottish Government is far back, according to the Parliament website at least. We are talking to the Home Office about at least two years, and obviously it would create a big problem if those were outlawed in the rest of the UK, but not here. I think that that is pretty straightforward. If there are no more questions, I thank members for your feedback. That is very helpful. Just in view of the range of questions and the significance of the bill, it is indeed extensive in terms of its provisions that are being proposed. Obviously, we were quite late receiving the DPLR committee report. In view of that, I am happy for us to take away the questions and points that have been raised and will seek appropriate views. We will schedule another session further in our work programme to come back on those LCMs with a minister in a few weeks' time, probably. Our second item is consideration of two negative SSIs, namely the Far Fighters Pension Schemes Scotland amendment order of 2024, SSI number 26 of 2024, and the sexual offences act 2003 prescribed police stations Scotland amendment regulations of 2024, SSI number 30 of 2024. I refer members to paper 2. I ask members if they have any questions on those instruments or are we content with both. I have a question. I wouldn't in any way want to hold up the passage of the SSI 26, which removes historical discrimination, but there are some outstanding issues that aren't covered in the SSI. Perhaps if we could get further information from the Scottish Government on that. A significant part of the Fire Brigade Union UK-wide response to the consultation relates to the issue of aggregation, which is not covered in the regulations. That only applies to some members who joined the Fire and Rescue Service before April 2006, but it is an outstanding issue that I am sure we would all want to address. It would be useful to get an understanding of the Scottish Government's position on that. I appreciate that there are UK-wide discussions on going, but it would be useful to know whether the Scottish Government considered going further itself or what representations it is making in relation to those issues. I thank the Scottish Government for that, Katey, and we have noted that. Just in respect of both those SSIs, I will start with the firefighter one that Katey has already mentioned. I see that the Scottish Government has put the wrong date on this. It is a mistake. It does not look at all of any impact whatsoever. However, the DELPR committee has said to us that this date should be corrected. It relates to death and service payments for firefighters. They say that, even though the wrong date is on the paperwork, they would honour any payments within what is considered to be the correct date. Their position appears to be that it is not likely to be if it did happen and they would respect it. I think that that is in writing, but I wonder technically whether we should consider ensuring in line with what the DELPR committee has asked that this is fixed before it proceeds or whether we are happy as it is whether it is just a technical matter, but we will turn to the sex offender notification one now quickly. It essentially removes tain from the list of police stations in which register sex offender notification requirement takes place. A Sunday post investigation earlier this year found that there has been a significant rise in registered sex offenders in the Highlands up 50 per cent in two years. That has attributed to people who are on the register sex offender seeking to find somewhere that they are perhaps not known. I note in page 7 that the Scottish Government said that the local councillor has been informed of what is going on. Local councillor singular. However, the word of tain in Wester Ross has got three councillors and I am curious to know whether they have all been consulted. I dare say that they would not be particularly objecting to register sex offenders no longer attending at their local police station. Therefore, perhaps more importantly, have the councillors in the police station where they are now to be directed? Have they been consulted on this? I do not want to slow it up, but I will just put it out there. I am assuming that that is something that we can take away and we can confirm. It is a fair point to raise, but I suppose that coming back to the issue that we have in front of us today, you are still content that we are content with the SSIs as they are and we can follow up the points that you have raised. Is this a final position or do we have time to say again? As it stands at the moment, what we are being asked today is to express our agreement with the SSIs. We have noted the points that you have made. Obviously, if you were not, that would hold things up. I would refer to Stephen in terms of the timescales that we have, but in any case we are able to follow up the points that you have made and to clarify them. Therefore, in agreement and glad that we can look at those points. Is there anything that you want to come in on, Stephen? Can I confirm that members are content with both the SSIs as they are, bearing in mind the comments that have been made? That concludes our public agenda items for today. On 13 March, we will continue the consideration in private of our draft stage 1 report on the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill. We now move into private session.