Chamber and committees

We want to make that change so that we have a framework in place, which will allow us to move forward with the victim contact team.

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.

I thank all the members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their attentive and valuable work in scrutinising the Judicial Factors (Scotland) Bill.

The bill is a Scottish Law Commission bill: I thank the commission for its considerable work—not only on this project, but on all the other projects that it undertakes to simplify and improve our laws. I am committed to introducing bills to implement its proposals. This is the third SLC bill to be introduced in this session of Parliament, with the fourth, on the termination of commercial leases, being due shortly.

A judicial factor is a person who is appointed by the court to gather, hold, safeguard and administer property that is not being properly managed. Examples include the winding up of a partnership when the partners are unable to agree on how the partnership will operate, and when a child is due to receive funds in excess of £20,000 and/or when the child’s estate is large or complicated, which might be the case after a personal injury damages award, for instance.

If it is agreed to this afternoon, the bill will put in place an updated and comprehensive framework that will bring clarity, accessibility and efficiency to this vital area of the law. There are only about 50 judicial factors currently appointed to manage someone else’s property, and only a handful of applications for appointments are made each year. To my mind, that reflects the fact that applications are a last resort. However, despite the small numbers, for those who are involved with judicial factors in one way or another, the bill will make positive changes.

The appointment of a judicial factor to manage the property of a missing person was closely scrutinised by the DPLR Committee, and for very good reason. Although such appointments have been made in the past, they have been rare, despite 15 people in Scotland each year being declared long-term missing. There will be various reasons that are individual to each case for why an application for appointment is or is not made, but the bill will remove one potential obstacle, which is the difficulty that is caused by the outdated and complex law.

The bill aims to bring the law together in one place to make it easier for users of the legislation. Not only is that the case, but one of my amendments from stage 2 has committed the Scottish ministers to producing and publishing guidance for such an appointment. I will work with the charity Missing People and other stakeholders, including the Office of the Accountant of Court, to help to prepare that guidance.

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has already suggested a number of points that should be covered in the guidance, and I will make sure that they are included. Just as important—