Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are we finishing up, or can we refer to the other letters?

Good morning. I share the convener’s view that the bill is absolutely welcome. It has long been clear that Companies House can be abused by criminals and that it is not some abstract concept involving only overseas individuals or regimes; it matters here in Scotland. In fact, it is quite common to find multiple Companies House entries for individuals who are trying to hide their pasts or mask the true ownership of companies, and that includes individuals who are involved in high-end organised crimes, such as the drugs trade or VAT fraud. Therefore, it is all to be welcomed.

However, to be frank, the legislative consent motion has come to us as a committee at fairly short notice. It is highly complex. Even trying to read the report that we received last night was quite a challenge. I will try to bring it back to some simple questions. My opening question would be: given that the UK Government published this bill in September 2022, what has been the delay in getting the LCM to us?

My next question is whether we have reached the end of the road with this process. If we do not agree to the LCM today, is there an option for us to put it on ice? Is there still room for negotiation between the Scottish Government and the UK Government?

This might be more of a procedural point for the clerks, but if the committee does not support the legislative consent motion today, would it be competent or feasible for us to revisit it? Would we have time to do so?

It is not so much the numbers, which are fluid; it is more to do with the inevitability of more Scottish spaces being required but less being paid for them. The providers have already given evidence to the effect that that will have an impact on their viability.

To come back to what Stephen Imrie suggested, it could be that there is nothing to worry about—there probably is nothing to worry about—but, given the complexity and the last-minute nature of the process, it would be nice if we could follow the suggestion to agree in principle but have the option to revisit the matter once the negotiations have concluded.

No. The effect would be to simply negate the Thursday release element. We have not sought to amend the Friday release part of the bill.

Yes. It has not been immediately obvious that the Thursdays come into play. All of the focus has been on the Friday element, which we have had evidence on. This is to point out that, almost by the back door, Thursday would also become a non-release day, albeit with the conditions that I mentioned.

To conclude, I would be keen to get support for amendment 71, too.

I move amendment 68.

That is my understanding. We should bear in mind that short-term prisoners are in prison for up to four years, so they include people who are serving sentences for some pretty significant crimes such as crimes involving violence and sexual violence. If, following release by virtue of a Parole Board process, they reoffend, they would be required to serve the rest of their sentence.

Potentially, yes.