Chamber and committees

That all sounds perfectly reasonable, but why can the Scottish Parliament not just set an unlimited fine? The point that I am driving at is that the profession itself is going to set the fees for disciplinary matters. Are you saying that because English firms set their fines there is parity there?

I am fully supportive of that notion. My concern is about one micro-element: why would we not want the Scottish Parliament to set the fees? Why would you want the profession to set them? That is the bit that I do not understand. Is that where there is to be parity with England? I get the bit about unlimited fines, which makes absolute sense here.

I apologise—I meant fines. We are talking about a statutory fine limit.

Thank you—that is helpful.

My next question is unrelated. The bill will remove the statutory fine limit and allow the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal to set its own limits on financial penalties that are imposed for economic crime disciplinary matters. Traditionally, Parliament has set fines and fees for all sorts of disciplines—the Accountant in Bankruptcy comes to mind. It is right for Parliament to set some fines, because that is more democratic and allows people to see clearly how fines have been set.

In principle, I am not in favour of organisations setting fine limits for crime. You can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that this measure is in the context of financial penalties for economic crime disciplinary matters. That is surely a matter for Parliament and not for an organisation.

I certainly do not want to go down such a road. I oppose some fees being set by professions and I can think of lots of examples in relation to that. I know about the Accountant in Bankruptcy because it sets extraordinarily high fees for individuals who are trying to recover from their indebtedness. It is more democratic to let Parliament decide. I ask about the provision in the bill because I am sure that there is a reason for it.

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?

It is helpful. The Government might therefore want to consider ensuring that it is clear in the bill that risk to life is the basis for such decisions. You could understand why ministers would want the power if there was risk to life, but I do not think that the bill contains those terms.

Yes. I thought that I would raise these matters now to give you a chance to address them in summing up.

I have a similar concern in that sentencing policy is a massive area, and I want to be sure what we would be setting up for if we were to vote for the amendment. The automatic release of short-term prisoners halfway through their sentence is an on-going topical issue. I welcome the fact that it has been brought to the committee, but, as we did not take any evidence on it, we need to be clear—I take Jamie Greene’s point and I will let him intervene in a moment—that, if we agree to the proposal because we think that it is right in principle, it will be for the system to resource it properly.

I am trying to understand the amendment. It would mean that every single case would go to the Parole Board for the final decision and the person would be released on licence in every case. I will give way if you want to address your point about the parity of short-term and long-term prisoners, which is not something that I had considered before you raised it. Perhaps that could be addressed in the summing up, although it was Jamie Greene who made that point.