Chamber and committees

I recognise the impact that antisocial behaviour can have on local communities in all areas of Scotland. That is why we have increased police funding to a record £1.62 billion this year, and it is why funding to local government has increased in real terms by 5.5 per cent. Local authorities and Police Scotland have a range of options and powers available to prevent and tackle antisocial behaviour, taking local needs into account.

Moreover, since 2008, our cashback for communities programme has provided £154 million to support young people who are most at risk of being involved in violence, antisocial behaviour and crime. The most recent cashback bidding round has just closed.

I will take those comments on board during my discussions. However, I am also aware of some very good practice in Mid Scotland and Fife, such as increased patrols in Stirling city centre and good practice in responding to antisocial behaviour involving retailers in Stirling, which was highlighted by the independent working group on antisocial behaviour. I have visited that social enterprise in Stirling and it does incredible work. We can take guidance from there on how we tackle antisocial behaviour.

We all want the same thing for the VNS in future. Mr Greene, when you consulted on your proposed—

Further to amendments that were agreed to at stage 2 to reform the victim notification scheme, the amendments in this group will help to deliver a more trauma-informed approach to the VNS.

The VNS has a criminal justice aspect and a forensic mental health aspect. The latter—the compulsion order and restriction order VNS—relates to victims of patients in the forensic mental health system who are subject to a compulsion order and a restriction order. All my stage 3 amendments will deliver reforms across both the criminal justice VNS and the CORO VNS, unless otherwise stated.

I know that Jamie Greene will have the opportunity to speak shortly on his amendment 85 in this group. He is aware that we cannot support it, although I am sympathetic to the intention. The Scottish Prison Service and the Parole Board for Scotland have been clear that amendment 85 would not result in a better service for victims. The additional process steps that would be needed would create delays for victims. Such barriers are at odds with our ambitions for VNS reform and the rest of the amendments on the VNS. I therefore urge Mr Greene not to move that amendment.

Turning to the Government amendments, I will speak first to amendment 66, which is linked to amendment 94. Those amendments take forward recommended reforms to VNS eligibility when a victim has died or is incapacitated.

Currently, when a victim has died, the first four eligible relatives from a strict hierarchical list can join the VNS, and when a victim is incapacitated, the highest qualifying relative from that list can join the VNS. We know that that approach is inflexible and causes distress. Amendments 66 and 94 will change that so that the approach is based on the nature of the relationship with the victim, not the current list. In situations in which a victim has died, it will be possible for a total of five people to join the VNS, rather than the current four. The Scottish ministers will also be able to enable more people to join the VNS by way of regulations, thereby ensuring future flexibility.

That discretionary decision making will be underpinned by the code of practice, which will also govern decisions on a child victim joining the scheme. The code is to be published in draft, consulted on and laid before Parliament, reflecting its importance.

Amendment 67 comprises a set of changes that will support a key aim of VNS reform—parity of treatment for victims, where appropriate, regardless of where the offender is held. It will do that by ensuring that victims of child offenders who have been sentenced to detention in secure accommodation can benefit from the same rights under the VNS as victims of offenders who are held in prison or in young offenders institutions.

Amendment 68 will deliver a recommendation from the independent review by introducing a bespoke decision-making process in relation to a child victim who wishes to join the VNS. A determination on who will receive the information will be made based on the child’s age, views and best interests.

The child’s best interests will be at the heart of how decisions are made and whether child victims will able to join the VNS in their own right. We recognise that, in some cases, those decisions will be finely balanced, especially with regard to age. However, I make it clear that we will seek to accommodate a child’s wishes as far as possible.

Amendments 69 and 95 make provision to enable victims to nominate a person to receive information at the same time as, or instead of, the victim, which is also a recommendation from the VNS review.

Amendments 70 and 77 to 81 collectively deliver key improvements to victims’ rights where a cross-border transfer of an offender or patient takes place, in line with the recommendation from the independent review. That will make it easier for victims to exercise their rights once a transfer is taking place, including transfers into Scotland.

Amendments 70 and 80 will enable victims to be advised of the jurisdiction to which the offender in their case is being transferred, unless that is not in the interests of justice. That is a crucial change that will help to provide victims with peace of mind. Amendment 71 will enable the Scottish ministers to provide victims with information ancillary to the core information that they receive under the VNS in order to provide flexibility and more meaningful information for victims.

Amendment 72 has two main parts. First, it amends existing order-making powers for the VNS so that they can be used to make a wider range of changes to the information available under the scheme than is possible under the current powers, thereby ensuring greater flexibility. Secondly, it responds to the VNS review’s recommendation that victims should be able to be told of each occasion of temporary release from prison where that might bring the offender into close proximity with the victim. Engagement with stakeholders indicated that there was a range of conflicting views on the recommendation, so we are taking the power now to enable future changes to be made by way of secondary legislation. That will give us the opportunity to consult on the issues and build a consensus with stakeholders on the way forward.

Amendments 73 and 74 are technical amendments that build on provisions that were agreed to at stage 2. Amendment 74 will enable the Scottish ministers to make regulations that impose a duty to co-operate with ministers for the purpose of the VNS on other persons, thereby future proofing the scheme in case of expansion. We will consult before progressing such regulations.

Amendment 74 will also facilitate better access to information for victims where a cross-border transfer occurs by ensuring that the Scottish ministers can co-operate with other relevant persons.

Amendments 73 and 75 make consequential changes to stage 2 amendments.

Amendment 82 delivers a recommendation from the independent review on the information available under the compulsion order and restriction order VNS that will enable victims registered for the CORO VNS to receive information about an appeal against recall being lodged and about the outcome of such an appeal.

Amendment 161, in the name of the cabinet secretary, makes changes to the long title of the bill to reflect the amendments in my name in this group. I am sure that the Parliament shares my ambitions for VNS reform, so I urge members to support my amendments in this group, and I ask Mr Greene not to move his amendment.

I move amendment 66.

I am sorry.

When you consulted on your proposed victims bill, did you get any response from the SPS or the PBS regarding the timing of information provision?

It is important to be clear that the Scottish Government is not downgrading fire station services across Scotland.

Decisions on the location of fire stations, along with vehicles, equipment and the people who are needed to deal with responding to emergencies, are a matter for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s chief officer. The emergencies that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service responds to have changed significantly over the years. For example, dwelling fires have reduced by 20 per cent since 2013. At the same time, we have seen the risks of flooding and wildfires increasing. It is therefore sensible for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to carry out a service delivery review to ensure that its resources are in the right place at the right time. It is currently consulting on its review, with a closing date of 16 September. Until the results of the consultation have been properly analysed, no decisions have been taken.

First, I need to highlight that, since 2017-18, there have been substantial year-on-year increases of funding to support the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. The current annual budget is more than £97 million more than it was in 2017-18. This year alone, there is an additional £18.8 million in support for front-line services.

We understand that this is not a cost-cutting exercise. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is undertaking a service delivery review, and there is a live, full public consultation. I encourage everybody to take part in that consultation.

No, I do not agree with the member’s assumption. As I said, this is an operational issue for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. No decisions have currently been made, and I encourage the member and her constituents to take part in the consultation.

I completely agree. Without a stand-alone court that embeds specialist approaches to the management of cases, our efforts to embed a trauma-informed system for victims of sexual violence in the justice system would be at risk. As the member knows, the Criminal Justice Committee has heard from senior members of the judiciary, the Lord Advocate, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, Rape Crisis Scotland and Victim Support Scotland, who all gave the view that the sexual offences court has the potential to be transformative. I suggest that those expert voices are listened to.