 I welcome to the 19th meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee in 2023. We have no apologies this morning and Fulton MacGregor is joining us online. Our first item of business this morning is consideration of a supplementary legislative consent memorandum on the Northern Ireland Troubles' Legacy and Reconciliation Bill. I'm pleased to welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance, and her officials to the meeting. Ms Claire McKinlay, solicitor with the Scottish Government's legal directorate, and Mr Michael Halpin, defence policy manager with 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, and then we'll move to questions. Thank you, convener, and good morning. The UK Government's Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy and Reconciliation Bill and subsequent LCM was refused consent when it first came to the Scottish Parliament in October 2022. The UK Government has now proposed amendments to the bill, which we only received in full on 8 June. We do not consider that these amendments satisfy our concerns that resulted in the previous LCM being refused consent by Parliament. In its current form, the bill still allows for the granting of immunity to people who apply for it, even though they may have committed serious offences during the troubles. Effectively, the bill potentially means an amnesty for those who have committed offences such as murder and crimes involving abuse and torture, including where those crimes were conducted by agents of the state. Therefore, the Scottish Government recommends that Parliament maintains its position to withhold consent to the amended Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy and Reconciliation Bill. There are reasons for doing so focus on three key areas—the ability of victims to seek justice, the Secretary of State's powers to amend evolved legislation and the impact on the Lord Advocate's responsibilities. First, for those who have been directly affected by the troubles and are seeking justice, we do not believe that the amendments to the bill will increase the opportunities for those families and communities to obtain justice or ensure that those who committed offences during the troubles are appropriately held to account. We are cognisant that it is not only the Scottish Government that has concerns in this regard. Indeed, the bill was opposed by all parties in Northern Ireland. Also, the UK Parliament's own Joint Committee on Human Rights has previously raised doubts on the bill and its compatibility with the European Convention of Human Rights. Further, the Northern Ireland Office of Amnesty International UK has accused the UK Government of treating victims with contempt and stating that amendments do nothing to address the fundamental flaws with the bill. Secondly, in its current form, the bill provides the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the ability to amend evolved legislation. Without having to make the Scottish Government aware of that, let alone seek the Scottish Parliament's agreement to do so. If the UK Government is to respect devolution, then it should not be exercising powers within the devolve competence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers unless doing so is specifically agreed. Lastly, we are concerned that the bill, even with its amendments, continues to encroach on the role of the Lord Advocate as the independent head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland. The Lord Advocate's independence predates devolution and is protected by section 485 of the Scotland Act 1998. However, some of the powers proposed for the independent commission created by the bill undermines that independence and breaches a fundamental cornerstone of our criminal justice system. In previous iterations of the bill, it was the case that even where immunity was not granted, the Lord Advocate could be impeded by the commission refusing to refer appropriate cases to the Lord Advocate's office. I therefore welcome the amendment proposed by the UK Government, which means that the Lord Advocate can now direct the commission to refer such a case to the Lord Advocate's office. However, as I have previously mentioned, the commission is also given powers to grant immunity from prosecution for the most serious offences. That, in practice, interferes with the independent decision-making of the Lord Advocate in such cases and effectively makes the Lord Advocate's decision on whether to be able to prosecute subject to the decision of another person. That means that the bill continues to cut across the Lord Advocate's role. In effect, it is the commission who will decide whether a prosecution can be raised, not the Lord Advocate. It is for those reasons that our concerns about the effect that the bill will have on those who have suffered and the lack of regard to the role of the Lord Advocate and the protections enshrined in the Scotland Act that the Scottish Government cannot recommend consent to the bill in its present form. I am now just going to move straight to questions and I am going to open it up to members. I think that Jamie Greene you would like to come in. I had a few questions following on from the opening remarks made by the Cabinet Secretary. I think that the first of all is maybe just an overarching one, which is around the Scottish Government's position on what the concept of the bill is trying to achieve. I appreciate that there are some subsequent questions around technical issues with regards to the role of the Lord Advocate. Perhaps the Scottish Government has some further questions around the potential implications of the human rights aspects of granting immunity, but from a policy point of view, what is the problem that the Scottish Government has with the concept of either immunity from prosecution in return for information, for example, or the concept of amnesty in general in Northern Ireland? What is its major substantive problem with that? I am not going to bring into Northern Irish affairs with respect to the UK Government bill. It is my job to point out where it has implications for our devolved responsibilities in Scotland. What I would say in terms of issues of immunity would be, in my view, the issues in and around immunity, as far as the impact on Scotland, would be for the Lord Advocate. In terms of access to justice, that would be a matter for our course. However, I am cognisant that all political parties in Northern Ireland have raised concerns about the bill. It is my duty to be clear to this Parliament about what my objections are in terms of the matters in and around the LCM, and that the bill continues to cut across the powers of the Lord Advocate. That is a cornerstone. It is not a technical matter. It is a fundamental cornerstone of how our criminal justice system works and how deaths are investigated in Scotland. As you would expect, the Scottish Government will have strong views on the ability of the Secretary of State of Northern Ireland, not even to inform Nevermind Consult if he steps into devolved matters. Those are more than technical matters. From our interests, those are fundamental. Respectfully, the question was, as you named it, as one of the three pillars of rationale for opposition against granting consent. One of them is a philosophical discussion around the concept of whether immunity should be granted in certain scenarios. Would the cabinet secretary not agree that it may be a useful tool to have in the box for the new commission with regard to maintaining on-going peace in relation to the fact that it is quite a well-established protocol. The Good Friday agreement itself was effectively one great amnesty on many sides of those troubles. Therefore, it would be a continuation of that. I am still struggling to understand what the political opposition is to it. The political opposition is, as I have clearly laid out in this statement, and maintaining peace in Northern Ireland is of paramount importance to anyone. However, I refer the member to the views of all political parties in Northern Ireland, which, of course, in this instance would take precedence over my views. Can I ask what correspondence exists between the Scottish Government or the Cabinet Secretary and the Lord Advocate? We have not, as a committee, seen any letters from the Lord Advocate explaining her position on this matter. Obviously, I take your word for it that the Government believes that there are issues, but what does the Lord Advocate herself say about the issue? Would you be willing to publish any such correspondence? I would have to seek advice on that. There has certainly been correspondence between Government to Government and between the Lord Advocate and the UK Government, but in terms of alignment of views, as I said in my opening remarks, we welcome the movement that was made by the UK Government to reduce the impact on the Lord Advocate's discretion and powers. Nonetheless, because the commission has the ability to grant immunity, fundamentally that continues to cut across the Lord Advocate's powers. Obviously, irrespective of what the committee discusses, this will probably come back to the Parliament. I believe that there is a debate schedule for next week on this. I wonder whether it might be helpful if the Lord Advocate could write to the committee or make a write to the Cabinet Secretary on her current position, given that the previous correspondence that may be available in the public domain was before any such amendments were brought in. I would be quite keen to see if it remains the Lord Advocate's position that she has a problem with the legislation, which might make it easier for Parliament to make decisions on it. At the moment, we are certainly hearing third-hand information through the Government rather than directly from the Lord Advocate. I suppose that I would perhaps take issue with what infers a slight on the Government in accurate reporting. Nonetheless, what the Lord Advocate communicates to the Parliament would, of course, be a matter for the Lord Advocate, but I will certainly ensure that the request for further information is communicated. When was the last troubles-related police investigation in Scotland? I do not know the answer to that. I do know that, and the officials will keep me right, that I do not know the answer to that, and I would not be commenting on if there were any live investigations currently that you would understand. I would not comment on that. I imagine that they are pretty rare if there have been any atoll in recent years, but is that something perhaps that we could come back to? It is not something that we have, or I have got information today. We can look into it, but certainly there are currently no live cases that are currently going on. What can I say, convener, is that we understand that there are no live cases, if that is helpful. I guess that it might be useful to know in recent years if that date is available. One thing that the commissioner seeks to be able to do is to release prisoners early, as part of the immunity and reconciliation process. How many troubles-related prisoners are there in Scotland just now? I do not know. I would have to go and check that information. If Mr Finlay would want a bit of an overview on how the bill impacts on issues such as prisoners and prisoner transfer, I could ask Mr Finlay to give you a brief overview if that is what you are looking for. I think that the submission explains how it might work in Scotland, but I just wanted to know whether it means practically in terms of numbers, whether it is more theoretical, which I suspect, or whether there is a likelihood of that coming into play here. I do not have that data at hand. No worries. I would have to check if it existed and if it is available. I am just going back to the point that Jamie Greene raised with the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate wrote to the UK Government and some movement was made by the UK Government in terms of amendments. We do not know what the movement specifically was. I think that Jamie Greene has rightly asked for this to be provided, but I wonder whether the Lord Advocate is satisfied with the UK Government response, or is it a ministerial decision, as opposed to the Lord Advocate's decision? It is a Government decision. Obviously, in this regard, the Lord Advocate is the minister of the Government. It is a full agreement with her. It is not a matter in and around the impact on the Lord Advocate's powers that I would be taking issue with the Lord Advocate if I can put it that way. In terms of the change as a result of the amendment, let me answer that question if I may. The amendment that has come forward from the UK Government is that, once the commission has decided that someone is not being granted immunity, the Lord Advocate could request that case to be referred to her, but the outstanding issue is that it is the commission that continues to make decisions about immunity in the first instance and therefore pre-empts the Lord Advocate. I understand, but given that this is fundamentally about the Lord Advocate's independence to operate in Scotland and take decisions as he or she sees fit, I am curious to know as to whether she remains dissatisfied with the UK Government's position. Yes, she does. Finally, the submission refers to the need for people who have committed offences during the troubles to be punished. It is not a word to be often heard from the SNP Government in respect of crime, but what the new commissioner seeks to do is to persuade people to engage truthfully in order that answers can be provided. Closure can be given to families and so on. Do you not think that one of the potential consequences of not consenting to this motion is that there will be a fractured approach and could lead to people not getting the closure and the answers that they need without a UK-wide approach? We all appreciate the intent, but of course it is how things operate in practice. I point Mr Finlay to the fact that, although the Scottish Government has some very specific concerns in relation to how devolution operates in Scotland and the powers of the Lord Advocate, and the ability of people who are resident in Scotland who have perhaps been impacted by the troubles and their abilities to access justice via the Scottish Courts, when the powers of the commission close off the opportunities to seek redress, either civilly or criminally. Those are, of course, real concerns for us here in Scotland, but we are not alone voice in expressing concerns. I would point the member to the concerns that have been raised across political parties in Northern Ireland with respect to the bill. I just want to say that it is inconceivable that we would support the bill. The cabinet secretary clearly laid out the reasons at the start, and I am not going to repeat them all, but the stand-outs for me are that it would deny justice to people here and in Northern Ireland who have been affected by what they call the troubles. The fact that all parties in Northern Ireland did not support the bill, I think that that says it all, really. I do not even think that we should be considering supporting the bill. Any other members want to come in at all? There is a scenario. If the legislation were to go ahead without Scotland participating in it being a separate legal system, does the cabinet secretary believe that that would create either any problems or opportunities? What sort of risk analysis has been done of the bill passing in Westminster without Scotland participating in it? Do you think that it would undermine perhaps any policy objectives of the legislation? Would it undermine the work of the commission, or would it render much of it useless if, for example, someone who was accused was residing in Scotland, and would therefore be prosecuted in Scotland, but not anywhere else in the United Kingdom? I wonder whether the Government has done any analysis on what that outcome scenario, which is a potential scenario, might look like. The bottom line is that, cabinet secretary, for justice and home affairs, I trust our court system and our system of prosecution. While we will continue to seek to engage the UK Government in and around further amendments, as you would expect us to do, the bottom line is that the UK Government can proceed with this act at the end of the day. Of course, Mr Greene would be aware of my dissatisfaction with that type of arrangement, but that is the reality that we are in. I suppose that I would dispute the premise of aspects of his question. Pauline McNeill, I think that you would like to come over to you. Thank you very much. Good morning, cabinet secretary. You may not be able to answer this, but if the political parties in Northern Ireland and the Scottish Government have got some issues with the way in which the legislation is framed, albeit that there has been some change, what is the driving force behind it, if not the parties in Northern Ireland? Is it purely the UK Government? It would seem odd, because usually there is a campaign somewhere behind it that would be pushing the Government to do something. The UK Government—I cannot comment on that. That is a fair question to ask somebody who could answer it. Where is it coming from? That is the difficulty that I have got in making an assessment on it. Did the Scottish Government fully review what changes had been made? Yes, they did come late in the day, so it was only the 8th of June, and we worked as speedily as possible. We will continue to engage with the UK as much as possible, but time is short, as Mr Greene said. We will anticipate debating the matter in chamber next week on how the legislation will progress at Westminster. It will go to report stage next week, and that will start next week. It is also my understanding—not a matter for me, so it is just my understanding—that the UK Government will be seeking progress with this bill before Westminster goes into summer recess. Time is quite short. I am trying to get my head round the changes that have been made. They seem to be—how would you describe them—fairly minor and superficial. Is there any substantive change since we last discussed it? In terms of the Lord Advocate's powers, I think that there are and remain fundamental concerns about how that cuts across the Lord Advocate's constitutional powers. Thank you, members and the cabinet secretary. Our next item of business is consideration of any final issues that we would like to include in our report on the supplementary LCM. I will open it up again to members just to come in with any specific issues that they would like included in the report, and then we will move on from there. I think that the Scottish Government made quite frank and open about their position on it, whether one agrees or not in a different matter. However, for the purpose of whether the committee or indeed the Parliament will have to do agree or disagree with the Government's position in regards to the LCM, one of the things that has been quite sorely lacking is communication from any other party other than just the conversations that we have had in evidence sessions with the cabinet secretary. I think that if the committee had been given sight of any correspondence and communication between the civil servants, Governments, ministers, Lord Advocate, Northern Ireland office, Secretary of State and so on and so forth, that might have been helpful. I am not saying that I do not trust the cabinet secretary's word on that, but it is very much the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government's opinion on many of those matters. It would have been helpful had we had some of that communication in the public domain where it was not breaching any privacy or any individual cases, for example. I understand sensitivities around that. I think that that may have helped the committee and will indeed help the chamber next week as well. I think that, to be fair, when we were originally scrutinising the original LCM, there was quite a lot of communication and good communication at that time. I would not like to say how that continued in relation to what we are looking at today in terms of amendments, but I think that there certainly was a pretty robust communication previously. Any other member who would like to come in? Thank you. I think that it would be quite useful to see set out. I know that we have had sight of one or two letters, but I cannot recall if we have seen the most up-to-date correspondence. I think that it would be worthwhile if it is at all possible to hear directly from the Lord Hanford. She is a member of the Scottish Government. This relates entirely to her jurisdiction, and I think that she can explain more confidently how that would affect potentially her role. A couple of things there—time is against us or under pressure of time. I am assuming that, if the Lord Advocate had—if there was an update in terms of her position on this matter, then if she felt that it was appropriate to share that with the committee or the Government, then she would do that. I think that the key issue is timescales, unfortunately. Any other members who would like to come in? Thanks very much for raising those issues, so we will make sure that they are included in the committee's report. On that note, the question is, does the committee agree 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? Are members content to agree with the Scottish Government that the Scottish Parliament should not give its consent? Yes. No. On that note, we will go to a vote. If I can ask members who are in agreement with the Scottish Government's recommendation to raise their hands, I can ask members who are not in agreement with the Scottish Government's recommendation. The final question is, are members who are abstaining if they can raise their hands? In support of the Scottish Government's recommendation, we have six votes, we have no votes against and we have two abstentions. Therefore, the committee is agreed 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. Thanks very much. Are members content to delegate to me the publication of a short factual report on the outcome of the deliberations of the LCM? This issue will now move to 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 have a short suspension for us as we wait for our next team to come in. Thank you very much. Our next item of business is consideration of a supplementary legislative consent memorandum on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. I am pleased to welcome the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance, Tom Arthur, and his officials to the meeting this morning. We have Ms Sean Leger, Land Reform Policy and Legislation Team Leader, Mr George Dixon, Detect and Distruct Team Leader at the Organised Crime Unit, Michael Paparakis, Civil Law Policy Manager and Patrick Down, Team Leader, Criminal Law Practice and Licensing Unit. Welcome to you all. I refer members to paper 5. I invite the minister to make some opening remarks on the supplementary legislative consent memorandum for the UK Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. Since my last appearance before the committee on 24 May, the constructive engagement at official and ministerial level with the UK Government has continued and I'm pleased to report has resolved matters. The supplementary legislative consent memorandum lodged on Monday of this week now recommends promoting consent to all relevant provisions in the bill. A series of amendments were made during the course of last week to reflect the outcome of those negotiations. Some new amendments were also made to add in new provisions related to the register of overseas entities and the identification doctrine. As such, the bill now has a combination of consent mechanisms, consult plus mechanisms, consult mechanisms, a sunset clause and ministerial correspondence to offer reassurance other than the policy intent of regulation making powers related to the forfeiture processes for cryptoasset. The Scottish Government remains fully supportive of the policy intent of the bill and now recommends promoting consent to all of the relevant provisions in the bill. I'll open it up to members for any questions that they'd like to come in on. Thank you very much. That was nice and short and sweet and simple. Just to put that into the most simple terms, for my benefit, you sought changes and they've been effectively all agreed to and you're consent content. We are content, but obviously areas where we would have liked perhaps to have a consent mechanism rather than a consult mechanism, but we're not going to make the perfect the enemy of the good. I think there's a broad agreement on the policy intent of this and I'm pleased that through constructive work between officers and ministers we've been able to arrive at this point. A textbook example of Scotland's two Governments working together. On that note, thank you very much. I'll 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'll open it up to members if there's anything specific that you would like raised. We'll make a half hour debate out of this next week, but I look forward to the minister's comments. Okay, nothing from you, Jamie. Okay, if I may, one of the things that I would like to highlight in the report is the comment from the Scottish Government that where the UK Government intends to take powers to make secondary legislation in devolved areas that must be accompanied by effective mechanisms to represent the devolution settlement and to recognise the responsibilities of Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament. Currently there is no process for the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise that subordinate legislation and at this stage it's not clear what information the Scottish Government will provide to the Parliament to facilitate scrutiny, so I would propose that we should make those points in our report and hopefully other members will agree with that. Members' contempt for me to raise that or us to raise that as a committee? Do you mean secondary legislation in the Scottish Parliament or in Westminster? Sorry, I didn't quite hear that. Sorry, your point was about the scrutiny of secondary legislation. Is that secondary legislation that's passed here or secondary legislation that's passed in Westminster with relevance to devolve competencies? I think that where there is ongoing dialogue between the two Governments in relation to how legislation is being developed within bills, it's not clear to me that the Parliament is aware of what those discussions might be, and it might be helpful for us to have some understanding of that process and perhaps issues that are being raised within that. I don't know if you want to add anything to that or if that pretty much covers it. Just to assist the member if that helps. Yes, as the convener said, when the two Governments are in dialogue with each other about secondary legislation, the UK Government is going to pass in devolved areas. I think that the point that the convener was making that would be helpful for the Scottish Parliament to be informed or better informed of that process. That sounds very wise. Assuming that this committee would be the lead committee on any such scrutiny, then that would be entirely appropriate. I agree with that, because specifically in relation to the new offence which will cover Scotland in relation to encouraging or assisting serious self-harm, I imagine that I don't know the background to that particular clause, but I mean that there was a big concern in case on social media of self-harm. Would that be an example of something that we would want? I think that you may be jumped on to our next agenda item. We have a lot on the agenda today. Okay, thanks very much members, so thank you for your agreement to that. I ask if the committee is in agreement that the Scottish Parliament should give consent to the relevant provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, as set out in the Scottish Government's draft motion. Okay, thank you members. Are members content to delegate to me the publication of a short report that summarises the outcomes of our deliberations on the LCM? So the issue now moves to chamber for all members to decide based on our report. So thank you very much minister and officials for attending the meeting this morning. It's been short and sweet and we'll have a short suspension while we wait for the next minister to arrive. Thank you very much. Our next item of business is consideration of a supplementary legislative consent memorandum on the online safety bill. I'm very pleased to welcome Marie Todd, minister for social care, mental wellbeing and sport, and her officials to the meeting. We have Ms Hillary III, head of self-harm policy and distress interventions, mental health, and Katie Richards, solicitor. I refer members to paper number two. So I now invite the minister to make some opening remarks on the supplementary LCM and then we'll move to questions minister. Thank you very much convener and thank you for the opportunity to meet with the committee today. I'll take a few minutes to outline what I will refer to as the self-harm amendment, which has triggered the requirement for a legislative consent motion and explain why the Scottish Government is recommending consent. This committee is previously considered an LCM for the online safety bill. The self-harm amendment creates an offence of communicating material that could encourage another person to engage in serious self-harm. The proposed penalties on summary conviction are an imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine or both. An indictment conviction, the proposed penalties are imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine or both. As members are aware, self-harm is a complex and sensitive issue and it is for many people a response to emotional distress. It's very often hidden and, while the data is quite poor, there is evidence that it is increasing particularly among young people. As we know that self-harm can be a way of managing distress, it also has the potential to cause serious physical and psychological damage. Furthermore, we know that self-harm can be a predictor for future suicide risk. The Scottish Government is already taking strong action to improve supporting care for people who have self-harmed. For example, we are investing in specialist support and working in partnership with people who have lived experience to develop a new self-harm strategy and action plan. That will be published later this year. We recognise that there is some really helpful information and support available online. However, there are also significant risks that people could encounter when they are looking for help online. That can expose people who are already vulnerable to harmful and malicious content and result in more serious injury and perhaps even suicide. Since late 2022, the Scottish Government has engaged extensively with a range of organisations and directly with people with their own experience of self-harm on the potential implications of this proposed offence. There is consensus that this offence will bolster online protections and help to prevent the risk of serious self-harm and potential suicide deaths. Some stakeholders have questioned whether the offence could criminalise vulnerable people who communicate about their experiences of self-harm with peers online as a way of providing or receiving support. The UK Government's position, with which I agree, is that this offence should only capture the most serious encouragement of self-harm. To that end, the amendment seeks to define the scope of the offence narrowly with a high threshold to only prosecute acts, which could result in serious harm and where there is a deliberate intention to encourage or to assist that harm. With that in mind, it is the Scottish Government's view that the new offence will ensure strong action can be taken to prosecute people who share material intended to encourage others to self-harm. It will act as a deterrent to people communicating harmful or malicious messages in the first place. Extending the offence to Scotland will therefore strengthen protections for people online, and it will ensure that the internet is a safer place for anybody, and in particular for people seeking mental health or self-harm support. In closing, I would like to make three points in support of the proposed amendment. Firstly, the Scottish Government recognises the need to balance creating a safe environment for people at risk of self-harm, alongside facilitating non-stigmatising, compassionate and effective support, which may include online support. We consider that this amendment sits comfortably with those dual aims and aligns very well with our ambitious approach on self-harm. Secondly, on balance, we consider that there is significant value in clarifying the legal framework for prosecuting and deterring communications and encouraging acts of self-harm in a consistent way across the UK by extending the offence to Scotland. Thirdly, we consider that extending the offence to Scotland will act as a deterrent, as well as providing a robust means of prosecuting deliberate acts of communicating material intended to encourage self-harm. I hope that the committee supports our view that the legislative consent motion is necessary, and I would be happy to deal with any questions. Thank you very much indeed, minister. It was a very helpful overview. I wonder if I can just come in firstly and ask a little bit about if we understand what the scale of the problem is at the moment, either in the UK but obviously with reference to Scotland at all. I would imagine that it is quite a difficult thing to measure other than we know that it is escalating. I wonder if there were any sort of indicators of what the scale of the problem is. Secondly, just a wee bit about the challenges that we might face applying the new legislation. I appreciate that those are quite big questions, but I would be just interested to know, given the online sphere that we are looking at. Hilary May, we want to say a little bit more about self-harm, but self-harm itself is quite hidden, and it is very hard to get reliable data and the prevalence throughout the population, even in Scotland, where it is an area that we are very keen on making an improvement. The condition itself is quite hard to know how common it is and how many of those people who self-harm are accessing information on the internet that might encourage them to to harm more or to harm more dangerously is really quite unknown. We do heretic-dotal evidence though, and there is undoubtedly a recognition that there is probably, whether it's a true rise or whether it's that the stigma has been removed and people are talking about it more, but we think that there is an increase amongst young people, and young people live online. They are innately able to navigate that space. It is their space as much more than it is for older people, so I think that it's important that we're ready and prepared for that shift in behaviour. In terms of how it will be prosecuted, they've been very careful about ensuring that the threshold is narrow so that it doesn't capture people who aren't behaving in a criminal way. I think that much of the aim is to discourage this type of behaviour, to make it possible to police it without ever having to prosecute it. As is the case with much criminal legislation, what you want is to shift the culture so that it doesn't happen in the first place, rather than having to prosecute the offences once they've occurred. I think that the minister has covered most of the main points thoroughly. The data sources are not robust because it would require somebody to attend, for example, an appointment or a GP and disclose that self-harm. Very often it's behaviour that's hidden and people don't seek medical attention. Added to that is the fact that it's a very stigmatised behaviour, which means that people might be unlikely to seek help. The work that we've done looking at more community sources suggests that it's far more widespread than quantitative data would suggest and that it could be growing particularly among some groups. As you said, minister, one of the important areas of work is in and around that preventative work that's going on, prevention and intervention which is absolutely key. We're very focused in the mental health portfolio on early intervention and prevention. That's very much where our focus lies. We've got a mental wellbeing strategy being launched in the next couple of weeks, but we will also have a specific self-harm strategy later in the year. I'm keen to say that that's world-leading. It's certainly innovative. It's not common for countries to recognise the challenge that self-harm presents and to produce strategies to tackle it. It is not a well-recognised issue. It is hidden. It is stigmatised. We are really trying to shift the balance of that in Scotland. I know that a number of members are wanting to come in. I've got Jamie Collette. These are technical questions, but rather than wider policy questions. The bill has presented, thanks to amendments that were passed in 165 and 166 at the committee stage in the House of Lords, state that the new fence can be committed where the act is committed outside of the UK by a person who is habitually resident in the UK or by a person who is a body incorporated or constituted under UK law. I'm keen to explore what effect that has on Scottish law and prosecution because obviously someone can be habitually resident in different parts of the UK. Therefore, would they be prosecuted under this legislation in England, Wales or Scotland? In this scenario, for example, you won't name any particular social media company, but you can use your imagination where somebody is accountable under the parameters of being a corporate officer, for example, and therefore is liable under that parameter, and habitually resides in Edinburgh, for example, but the company, say, is registered in London. Would they be prosecuted because the company is registered in London? Would they be prosecuted under Scotland? Or if both of those scenarios were both the company and the person where resident in Scotland would be a lot clearer, but the act could be committed outside of the UK, for example, in the US, so it's just a bit unclear as to how that would roll out in practice. I think that that would probably depend on the circumstances of the individual case, but I think that your question illustrates why it is an important thing that we have similar legislation right across the UK. One of the reasons why we are recommending consent is because we recognise that the borders for this type of offence are not as clear-cut as they might be for one that happens in real life rather than in virtual life. I think that it's really important that it does work across the UK. I don't know, Katie, if you want to say a little bit more. Thank you minister. I'm not sure that there is a huge amount more that I can state at this stage, because I think that it will depend upon the facts of each individual case, but the drafting has been put in here to ensure, as minister said, because it's an online environment that there can still be prosecutions within a relevant jurisdiction, even if that takes place outside of the jurisdiction. We'd be happy to write to the committee to give a fuller answer if that would be helpful. I guess that the online and tech industry is growing in Scotland, and there will be a number of people in quite senior management positions who ordinarily reside, or as it's quoted, habitually resident in Scotland, and whether or not they would be prosecuted under Scots law, England and Wales, if the primary factor was where the person is resident as opposed to where the company is registered or where the offence took place. It was just a bit of clarification around that, and I know that there are hypothetical scenarios, and hopefully few and far between, but it wasn't entirely clear from the notes what the scenario would look like. I guess that following on from that is what analysis has been done by the Scottish Government as to perhaps the scale of companies that this may fall into this category. Do we know how many large social media companies or tech companies where this is very relevant have corporate headquarters in Scotland or are most of them based elsewhere? I would say that we don't have great data on that. As I said to the convener in our first question, we don't have robust data that tells us how much self-harm activity is happening in Scotland. We also don't have enough data that tells us how much is being encouraged by online behaviour. I think that we can be confident that it would be rare that a prosecution would occur, that the threshold is narrow and well defined. There has to be intent. Initially, a warning would have to be deliberately pushing. I don't think that it will be a large scale level of prosecution from that particular amendment. I guess that amendment and much of the bill is trying to shift the culture to ensure that people, individuals and corporate organisations can be held responsible for the actions that they take. Much of it is about shifting the culture and preventing harm rather than enabling prosecution. That is a fairly high level. I imagine that those prosecutions would be quite well publicised and of huge media interest, particularly where they relate to well-known online platforms. Obviously, the bill covers and creates in your offence a very specific one of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm with another person. That could be interpreted, although the offence itself is narrow, that could be interpreted quite widely. Encouraging someone to self-harm strays from one territory where we commonly associate online encouragement of self-harm to almost the point of online hate crime, where the encouragement of self-harm is used perhaps more as an attack or an insult rather than something that is perceived to be of assistance. That means that it could be quite widespread and we are all on social media and we all read those kind of comments. I wonder what implications that would have for the policing of that. We have in the past heard of concerns that sometimes legislation has passed, but there is not enough. There is not a wide range of conversations with, for example, Police Scotland, who ultimately pick up the calls when people phone in and complain or make complaints or allegations of this nature. I just wondered what the minister's decisions have had with other cabinet secretary colleagues, for example, in other directorates around the resource implications or perhaps the scale and volume or the public awareness that might go along with it, so that we do not suddenly overnight create the perception of a new offence that the public will respond to? I do not think that we have run the risk of this because it is so narrowly defined. The amendment defines the scope of the offence very narrowly and with a high threshold. There has to be an intention to encourage and it has to be serious self-harm. It really is quite narrowly defined. I do not think that it is an amendment that can be used. I would not expect it to be used widely. As I have said, we would expect what the UK Government is aiming for with this particular bill as a whole is shifting the culture. I do not think that it could be used maliciously because of those high thresholds. I think that it would be relatively safe. That is why we are recommending that we consent to this because we think that it is a helpful additional amendment rather than that we do not foresee any risk of it being wrongly used or too widely used. I am getting a bit of feedback as well. I took on my line of question in terms of the corporate body liability table. One thing that I will ask is probably a technical question as well as more to do. It is saying that off-com is going to be the regulator for this, particularly with social media sites. Is that something that they will, and you mentioned about, initially they will be given a warning before being prosecuted and held liable for it? Will they be providing regular reports, like quarterly reports, stating whether warnings have been given out and prosecutions as well? Is that something that you will get on a regular basis? It is a regulatory bill. An off-com will act as regulator with powers to take action against the companies that do not follow their new duties, including fines. The criminal action will be taken against senior managers who fail to follow information requests from off-com. At present, we will regularly present information. As they currently do, this type of information will be added to their regular reports to the UK Government rather than to the Scottish Parliament, although of course we should be able to access that information. No further questions. My understanding of this legislation is that it is very much a positive piece of legislation, but there has been much criticism of it in that it could be stronger. I wondered whether, either today or perhaps in writing to the committee after today, if the Scottish Government could maybe outline what further changes they think needs to be made at Westminster level in terms of legislation to provide a stronger statutory framework. The UK Parliament has had extensive engagement with stakeholders, including the Scottish stakeholders, who are content with this particular amendment. There may be concerns about the wider bill or people may well want the wider online harm bill to go further than it does. However, with this particular amendment, our stakeholders in Scotland are particularly content with it. There was a concern, as you might imagine, from people with lived experience that it might criminalise, as I said in my opening statement, people who are simply sharing their own story in order to seek support or to provide support. We have found that the UK Government has listened very carefully to those concerns, and we think that this amendment has been crafted well to land in the right place with the appropriate balance and proportionality. Ministers have written to the UK Government on a number of occasions raising and making observations about the broader bill. Most recently, the First Minister wrote earlier this month, but that is probably outside of the scope of today's conversations. However, I presume that we could share that if that is of interest. As you know, the committee has been looking at the broader issue of online child sexual exploitation and the escalating incidents of that. Obviously, our discussions have incorporated the bill and its progress. We are in a position to remain cited on the Government's position in and around the bill in particular, but it is an issue that the committee is very interested in. I want to say that this is an incredibly important amendment. I am delighted that the minister and the Scottish Government are taking it so seriously and are emphasising prevention and culture change. It is a really positive way. Do you know if the UK Government is planning to evaluate this in any way? I am sorry if I have missed this in the notes, but do you know if an evaluation of how it is working will be done? I am sure that that would be part of the normal, post-legislative scrutiny process for the UK Government. As with the economic crime bill, it is good to see both Governments working so effectively and constructively together. When you spoke, you talked about the world-leading self-harm strategy. You were reluctant to call it that, but the document does call it that. You are being modest. I know that you cannot and I would not expect you to go into detail just now, but can you at least indicate whether it might include a legislative element or is it more non-legislative? It is more about shifting the practice and culture and first recognising that the condition exists. As I said, one of the real challenges with self-harm is that it is hidden because it is such a stigmatising behaviour. It is really about shifting the culture and practices and ensuring that our health and social services, so that all of our public services can recognise and give compassionate support to people who are in that situation. Thank you members. If there are no other questions, we will 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. I think that it would be very much a case of the committee very much welcomes the Scottish Government's position. It is an important step forward. It provides clarity. It is perhaps not without its challenges and in and around the enforcement of the specific piece of legislation. I think that there seems to be some agreement around the important role that data and evaluation has. I will open up to any other members who would like to include any specific issues in our report. If there is nothing specific, we will move on. Can I ask the committee if 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? Are members content to delegate to me the publication of a very short factual report on the outcome of our deliberations of the LCM? The issue now moves to the chamber for all members to decide based on our report. With that, I thank the minister and her officials for joining us this morning. We will have a short pause to allow the minister to leave. Our next item of business is consideration of some follow-up correspondence received from the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, after we considered the issue of police searches for pyrotechnic devices outside football matches and other events. I refer members to paper 3. I will open up to members and ask if they have any issues or comments that they want to make on the letter that we received to Russell. The minister, when she gave evidence, was a few days after a particular football match at Amden, in which scores of people had pyrotechnics within the ground and the kick-off was delayed and so on. My line of questioning was why could the existing legislation not have dealt with that, and I think that the letter confirms what we knew, which is that it could and it should have been able to do so. I just put on the record that the new legislation does not appear to be needed to deal with this particular problem of pyrotechnics in football grounds unless I am completely misunderstanding something, and it is just as he was putting out there. A couple of points, first following on from Russell Finlay, was a valid question of the Government. Does the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles Scotland Act 2022 give any new powers? I think that the understanding was that it was mostly in relation to the ability to stop and search, and not necessarily around the possession in certain environments, which Russell Finlay already said is already illegal. It was a bit unclear as to what will happen in future with regard to the act versus existing legislation, and what training or communication was happening with Police Scotland, so that officers on the ground at these big events—it is not just football events, other sporting and musical events, in fact I was watching some footage of a music festival that will remain unnamed, and there were lots of people in the audience flying flares of smoke coming out of them, and it just made a complete mockery of the fact that this committee spent a year on that bill to stop that happening. Needless to say, they were not writing, they were all having a good time, but that is by the by. I am on the letter itself, and I am grateful to the Minister for Community Safety to respond. I think that she was in some part responding to some very specific questions that I posed in that session, and there are two things that I wanted to query. The first is that, in relation to someone who is stopped under suspicion of committing an offence under the new act, the letter states that, if a prohibited item is found, it will be seized and retained. That makes complete sense. The individual most likely will be taken into police custody. That is intriguing. That is not evidence that we took from Police Scotland, but, if that is the case, I would find that interesting. It is also the case that many people are released without charge under investigative liberation, as the phrase goes. It then goes on to say that an individual may be given certain rules to follow, such as telling the person not to go to a certain place or speak to certain people for a certain period of time. I am quite intrigued by that. I wonder under which power the police, after liberating somebody who is not being charged and clearly says without charge, whether they can be given specific instructions not to attend certain places in certain groups of people. In the scenario in which someone is being stopped outside of a football game, an item is being removed, and they are then released perhaps even on the spot after investigation without charge, but, depending on further investigation, whether the police have the power to remove that person or to say to that person that they must then remove themselves from the vicinity of the stadium. It is just a bit unclear as to how that would work in practice. The letter seems to fall back on the admissibility of that individual being the responsibility of the event organiser or the location of the event themselves. The second is about the lifetime banner orders, which is a question that I raised. It seems to be that there is still a bit of a loophole here. My question originally was whether this could be an effective additional tool where somebody under this act is stopped and found being in possession of illegal articles in that scenario. It seems to me that they can only be given a football banning order, which can be quite lengthy if that person is also in breach of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice Act, which specifically says that they must be engaged in violence or disorder. Now, being caught with fireworks and flares, a football match does not necessarily mean disorder and violence if they have not used them, for example. It seems to me that it is that piece of legislation that would have to be altered to reduce the threshold for the introduction of FBOs. My question to the minister would be, is that something that the Government will consider doing? Ultimately, the threshold is extremely high for the introduction of banning orders at the moment. If someone could be a repeat offender in turning up with flares, they might even be barred from the venue or the stadium, but they would not be given a lifetime banner order in the current scenario. I think that there is certainly room for improvement on that. I wonder if the Government will respond to that. I think that a lot of the points that both Russell Finlay and Jamie Greene have made are reasonable. The letter sets out the current position around legislation, which, in the context of the discussion on pyrotechnics, has perhaps one or two gaps. However, I was pleased to read that the minister is having further discussions along with officials with Police Scotland clubs and authorities and other stakeholders around the effectiveness of the FBOs, which is welcome. The point that you made later, Jamie, was key and was around a course of conduct. My understanding—we can perhaps ask the questions in relation to orders—is that a course of conduct is anticipated before an order would be placed on someone. That is a practical issue at the moment. In relation to the lifelong ban, I think that that would apply. There would be looking for a series of conduct that indicates that a person is not desisting from their behaviour, i.e. continuing to take pyrotechnics, for example, into a ground. We have noted the points that you have raised. If the committee is happy, we can go back to the minister and ask some further questions. Our final item of business is consideration of a second piece of correspondence on the issue of policing and mental health, and I refer members to paper 4. I thank the cabinet secretary for her helpful update. I certainly welcome the creation of the cross-ministerial working group on this important matter. I think that the committee's interest in the issue and the priority that we have given is, hopefully, beginning to have some impact. We are beginning to see some progress being made to address the matters that we have highlighted. I will open it up to members and ask them if they would like to raise any points or further questions on the cabinet secretary's letter. The letter is very detailed and a lot of it is very welcome, but I think that what I have noticed is what is not in there. We have repeatedly raised the issue of officer suicides. With the usual caveat, of course, suicide has been complex. Specifically, how the complaints and discipline process appears to have been a factor in a number of deaths, and speaking to people who are either serving or former officers who believe that that is in desperate need of scrutiny by the Government, by the SPA, by Police Scotland and, indeed, the Crown Office. The letter does not really address the concerns that have been raised by those families and by those officers who have either attempted to seek their own lives or families who are grieving the loss of a loved one who has completed suicide. I think that it is perfectly proper that the Government and others are talking about both the policing of people in the community with mental health problems and recognising the impact that is having on officer mental health. However, I still think that there is a reluctance to properly look at the difficult issue of where there have been deaths and where there has been a contributory factor of what the officers have experienced due to their workplace issues. I remind members that we are running an evidence session in public next week looking at the issue of police officer suicides. I hope that that might be an opportunity to raise some of the issues that you have just outlined, Russell. I know that you are very interested in this particular issue. Any other members want to come in at all, Jamie? Yes, thank you. I thank the cabinet secretary for the update. Two points from the second page of the letter, the two middle main paragraphs. The first one is about the Scottish Government's dress brief intervention programme, which I think was new to me certainly and sounds very positive and helpful. However, I just wanted to clarify if it sounds to me that that can only be instigated if someone presents to a 999 emergency call or perhaps other calls to emergency services and it is dealt with at a call handling stage. Therefore, when the caller presents with either themselves or on behalf of someone, a decision is made in the call centre whether that call is then directed to Police Scotland to send someone out or whether it is sent to the distress brief intervention, but it is unclear where that is. Or is it the case that the call, in terms of the flow of it, goes to Police Scotland but it is flagged as a potential DBI for an officer who does not attend because it seems to imply that it is one or the other. I am a bit unclear and I would really find it helpful to understand the logistics of how that call handling goes and where that call ends up in relation to how someone is attended to. I have never heard of the intervention, and I do not know anyone who has. It is live in 20 HSCPs. It is helpful to know which ones it is live in. Obviously, they are making progress to roll that out. However, in practice, how is it actually working and how do people access the service? It sounds like a very good service, two weeks of very direct intervention and one-to-one perhaps for somebody who needs that help. However, I know a number of constituents who would benefit from that immediately, but I have no idea how they will access it. The second one is a comment made that I just want to question where it says that each health board is providing access to a mental health condition accessible to police officers 24-7 for those who require urgent mental health assessment or urgent referral to local mental health services. My conversations with officers and their representatives is that that is not the case. It is absolutely not a 24-7 service. I am intrigued to know what access to a mental health clinician looks and feels like on the ground. Is it just a phone number? Is it someone who will attend in situ? Is it somewhere that the police will take someone to? Is it a physical environment? It is certainly not a 24-7 environment. If that were the case, then the police would not be responding and spending so much time dealing with people with mental health difficulties. I am not entirely convinced that that statement bears true in the real world, and we should do a bit of work on investigating that comment further. I know that DBI has been an option for quite a number of years, in fact. It is relatively straightforward. My understanding is that police officers, for example, can use DBI as a referral option for somebody that they encounter who is experiencing poor mental health. That would ultimately be routed into their GP who would then pick up that referral and engage with the person. There may be some other points of contact along the lines or along that pathway, but I know that it is considered to be a successful user-friendly and certainly a well-established option. However, if it would be helpful and if members are happy to ask for some more detail on DBI, it is quite an important tool in the overall toolbox. I want to clarify, Jamie, on your second point. Was it in relation to the enhanced mental health pathway that you were in? It is, again, page 3 of the letter in the third substantive paragraph where it states that each heliport, I presume, is currently—it implies—provides access to mental health condition accessible to police officers 24-7, which is a surprise to me. The feedback is very much out of ours. That is not the case. Police officers have to deal with mental health assessments and that there is not 24-7 access to mental health conditions for every officer. The claim that every health board is currently providing 24-7 mental health clinician service, I find difficult to believe. If it is true, it is welcome, but maybe we could benefit for some more detail on that. I am more than happy to pick that up and ask for some more information and detail on that. Members are happy with that. Any other points that anyone wants to raise, if not, thank you. That concludes our business for this morning. I will close this meeting and we are now going to move into an informal private session. We will have a short break.