Chamber and committees

No. We are discussing the reform of the victim notification scheme with all our partners and moving forward with putting a victim contact team in place. At the moment, we are focusing on the framework legislation that will go forward to stage 2.

You will not at that stage, but we will move forward and you will get all the detail of it as all the work is done.

The delivery model—

We are aiming to do what was recommended in the review. I will go into some of the detail of that, because it is really important. We all want reform of the VNS. We want a bigger uptake, and the Scottish Government agrees with the recommendations and will take them forward.

There should be a specialist, skilled, trauma-informed victim contact team to handle all communications with victims. Eligible victims should automatically be referred to the victim contact team within a set deadline. The victim contact team should contact victims personally at a suitable time after sentencing, offering a conversation by phone in addition to the official notices. The contact team member should explain the system and what the sentence means, offer choices about how the victim would like to be communicated with, and offer easy ways to deregister and reregister if they wish to do so.

There should be a single victim notification scheme website for easy access for information. Communications should have built-in touch points so that victims are not left alone for long periods of time. Victims should ideally have a named contact in the victim contact team, with one phone number to call and one email address. There should be effective data-sharing protocols and shared access to relevant data systems, and the victim contact team should have strong links with victim support organisations to ensure effective and prompt signposting.

That is our ambition for the victim contact team. As I said, it is not going to solve the experience for the victim, but it should make things easier for them.

I will bring in Mari Bremner, who is a specialist in that area. However, reform is about improving things across the three schemes.

Provisions in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 allow for information to be provided to a victim when an offender is subject to a compulsion order, although those provisions have not yet been used. It is our intention to consult on how the scheme might operate for such victims. That is likely to include conversations on whether it would be applicable in all types of offence and what information should be shared. It will be important to ensure that any information that is shared is appropriate and proportionate. There may be merit in waiting until the victim contact team has been created prior to making any decisions on the VNS for victims of offenders on a compulsion order, because that is a very sensitive area.

Absolutely. We can arrange that.

I will see whether anyone else wants to comment, but I think that that is the point. How we contact victims is going to be so important when it comes to the victim contact team. It is all about ensuring that we do not have a long period of time without any contact, having a single point of contact and discussing with victims what their options are. After all, they might not feel strong enough to receive information; we do not know what traumatic impact it might have on individuals, so we really need to be sensitive and more trauma informed in those conversations. However, contact has to be on-going to ensure that, if the time ever comes that individuals want to be included in the VNS, they are able to register for it easily.

I do not know whether Lucy Smith wants to make any other points.

In its written evidence, the Faculty of Advocates suggested that, when the requirement to find caution is imposed by the court, the appointment of the judicial factor and the vesting of the estate and standard powers in the judicial factor should be postponed until after caution is found. I consider that it is sensible that registration of the appointment and vesting of the estate and standard powers do not take place until the accountant has confirmed that the requirement to find caution has been satisfied. That is what amendments 6, 7, 9, 10 and 13 provide for.

That ties in with section 8(3), which ensures that, when the court requires a caution to be found, the judicial factor does not receive a certified copy of the interlocutor and, thus, is not able to deal with the property until the accountant confirms that the requirement to find caution has been satisfied.

I ask members to support all my amendments in the group.

I move amendment 6.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendment 7 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

After section 6

Earlier this year, when responding to the committee’s stage 1 report, I set out my views on lodging an amendment to make it clear that it is competent to appoint a judicial factor over the estate of a missing person. During the stage 1 debate, it was clear that that was one of the issues about which many MSPs felt strongly. I have listened to those views and have considered whether more can be done to balance them with the wider policy regarding the circumstances in which the appointment of a judicial factor can be sought.

The committee’s recommendation is clear that a reference to missing people could be added in such a way to make it clear that the bill may be used by people who seek to manage the estate of a missing person. The committee knows my concerns about amending section 3, but my amendment 12 implements the recommendation while ensuring that the wider policy in the bill is not undermined.

Amendment 12 imposes a requirement on the Scottish ministers to produce guidance about the appointment of a judicial factor, under section 1, for the estates of missing people. As such, it makes it clear that the families of missing persons can use the bill.

I move amendment 12.