Chamber and committees

I have three points. First, I wholly agree with Jamie Greene. I think that what matters is getting the delay to be listed as a number of weeks or days. The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 is clear that someone should not be detained for more than 110 days in some cases or more than 140 days in other cases. Anything above that is contrary to the 1995 act. There has been a drop in the number of such cases, so it looks as though the delays are reducing. However, the committee needs to see what that looks like: how many weeks, on average, would a person have to wait for a rape case or a sexual offence case, for example, to get to court?

My second point relates to what Russell Findlay said about our visit yesterday. I will not say too much until I have read my notes and considered them in some detail, but my overall impression, as with previous visits, was that the facility was extremely impressive. However, I am concerned about two things, which the committee should drill down on. In my view, following the Angiolini report, the model could be undermined by the number of places within the Stirling estate being 100. It has been reported that there will be 80 places, but we were clearly told yesterday that there will be 100—I wrote that down. We know that two units are to be assessed, but the report recommended five. As a result, as we discussed yesterday, some women will be in male jails, albeit in women’s wings. I totally accept that there is a geographical dimension to this in relation to, for example, Grampian—I will say no more about that because it is beyond my knowledge. However, I am concerned that the model will be undermined if only a percentage of women end up being in the part of the estate that has been designed to change the way that we treat women offenders. The committee should come back to that.

Thirdly, I will make a similar point to the one that Jamie Greene made about deaths in custody. The Government’s response does not mention one of the primary recommendations, which is for families to have unfettered access to information following a death in custody. That is important, because FAIs take so long. Many families have complained that they did not get immediate access to information so that they could know what happened and ask questions. That recommendation is important for families. I suggest that we follow up the issue with Gillian Imery, the chair of the action group, and ask what conversations she is having. I am particularly interested in that. For completeness, I should say that, when the matter has been discussed in the Parliament, I have asked the cabinet secretary to explain how that unfettered access would cut across any police investigation; as has been said, it is not all that it is set out to be, and it could be problematic. However, it is important for families that that recommendation be followed through.

I do not know whether I am making myself clear enough. I will finish on this point. The note that I have clearly talks about a measure removing

“the statutory fine limit to allow the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal to set its own limits”.

It does not say that, in parity with England, it could set no limit; it says that it allows it

“to set its own limits”

on financial penalties. I would be grateful if that could be clarified at some point. Why would you want Scottish solicitors to set their own fines in relation to serious organised crime activity? I do not understand why the Scottish Parliament would not set those limits.

Good morning. I am trying to take this all in; I will ask a few questions. I have always been a strong believer in devolution, so I am always concerned if the UK Government attempts to undermine devolution in any way or to act without the Scottish Government’s consent. Will you say more about the UK Government’s rationale in this case?

I am happy to give way to the cabinet secretary.

Would the effect of amendments 68 and 69 be to revert to the original law?

In other words, the effect would be to isolate the Friday. The committee report spoke to the Friday being the problem. That is the effect of your amendments.

Jamie Greene and Russell Findlay have raised some pertinent questions about the sentencing of short-term prisoners. My understanding is that short-term prisoners are those serving four years or less. I am still not too clear about what Russell Findlay’s amendment would do, so it would be useful to hear about that when he sums up. However, my reading of it is that it would require that short-term prisoners could be released on licence only if recommended by the Parole Board. Would that change the current arrangements so that every short-term prisoner would need to be released on licence, meaning that, if they offended, they would go straight back to prison? That is what it means to be on licence, is it not?

I am trying to understand that. Do you regard that as quite a big change to the system?

However, it would go through the Parole Board.

That is helpful.

Everyone seems to be content that the Government should have emergency powers. However, I make a plea for clarity and for it to be easy to read the provisions and know what the power is about. It is about risk to life and, ordinarily, there will be regulations—it is about future proofing.

I do not know what the cabinet secretary’s position is on amendment 90, but, as I said, I am sympathetic to it. My only concern is that I do not know whether it is proportionate to say that, in every case, the period should be 180 days. It is important that we get section 8 right, so I make a plea that the Government give consideration to that if amendment 90 is agreed to.

On a point that Jamie Greene made, in the scenarios that we are talking about, I do not see why the bill cannot include a requirement to notify victims. That would be in line with a principle that we all believe in, but it seems to be missing from the bill.