Chamber and committees

Sections 12 and 39 of the bill confer powers on judicial factors and on the Accountant of Court to request information in relation to factory estates from persons and bodies. That might include, for example, requests being made to banks for financial information relating to an estate.

During stage 1, some stakeholders expressed concern regarding the provisions in sections 12(7) and 39(6), which set out that sections 12 and 39 do not authorise disclosures that contravene data protection legislation. The concerns were echoed by the committee, with the committee recommending that the Scottish Government consider clarifying the provisions further in the bill or removing them.

In the light of those concerns, I have given further consideration to the provisions and have lodged amendments 16 and 36, which adjust sections 12(7) and 39(6) to provide further clarification on the interplay with data protection legislation. The amendments make clear that, where the holder of information is considering whether a disclosure would contravene data protection legislation, they must take into account the provisions in the bill that authorise or require disclosure.

I move amendment 16.

Amendment 16 agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Section 13—Ingathering

Amendment 17 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 14 to 25 agreed to.

Section 26—Validity of certain transactions by judicial factor appointed on trust estate

Amendment 18 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 26, as amended, agreed to.

Section 27—Approval of judicial factor’s scheme for distribution of factory estate

Amendments 19 to 21 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

I am not aware of the specific scheme that Mr Simpson refers to, but I am happy for him to write to me about it. The issue of vehicles is covered between my portfolio and Mr Fairlie’s and we are happy to look at anything that could make things better.

As outlined in our response, we accepted the majority of the recommendations of the independent review of the victim notification scheme, including the central proposal of creating a victim contact team to provide personalised trauma-informed support. That will be based on the individual needs of victims, who will automatically be referred to the team for a discussion about their options and an explanation of their rights.

We are taking the opportunity of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is currently before Parliament, to prioritise the necessary changes to primary legislation. We will work with justice partners and victim support organisations in the coming months to deliver the reforms to ensure that the legislation operates in a more trauma-informed way.

Should the proposed changes be agreed by the Parliament in due course, we will continue that engagement.

I will give a bit of historical background to the early release in the summer. Victims of only 11 of the 700 prisoners who were considered for emergency release had registered an interest in the victim notification scheme. That reflects the fact that offender groups such as prisoners serving longer sentences were automatically excluded. The cabinet secretary ensured that, out of those 11 cases, only six prisoners were permitted early release.

As part of that scheme, the cabinet secretary ensured that, through the preparations for the recent emergency release, two new ways for victims to receive information were added. Victims were able to go through one of the four victim support organisations. Alternatively, they could contact the Scottish Prison Service directly to receive information on any potential release. We learned lessons from that and we will continue to do so.

I do not have the exact figures here, but I will write to the member with those details.

We are aware that the Home Office has said that it is not planning to introduce a registration scheme or other new requirements concerning ownership, but that it will be looking at other proactive approaches, such as increased powers to seize vehicles, which we already have as an option.

We regularly engage with the UK Government, and that engagement includes the sharing of best practice. The Minister of State for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention, the Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson MP, spoke to the UK tackling antisocial behaviour conference in October about developing technology to safely stop e-scooters and e-bikes, and to enhance the ability of the police to prevent them from being used to commit criminal acts. We aim to be involved with any on-going work or proposals, especially where improvements can be made in Scotland.

The Scottish Government recognises the harm endured by communities that is caused by dangerous and antisocial vehicle nuisance. Use of e-scooters on public roads, footpaths and cycle lanes is illegal, and likewise for e-bikes that exceed permitted criteria.

Police Scotland, in partnership with local authorities, has a critical role in ensuring safe roads through various activities. Enforcement of all traffic offences is for Police Scotland, which operates independently of ministers. We support Police Scotland in tackling misuse of such vehicles and ensuring safety where legal use is permitted. Local policing teams identify misuse of vehicles and ensure that areas are prioritised for action. Police Scotland, including local policing divisions, raises awareness of the dangers of misuse and promotes safety.

I, too, extend my thanks to the victims and their families who contributed their experiences of the justice system as part of the review. We know from the report that that engagement came at a personal cost. I reiterate my whole-hearted respect and admiration for the courage of the people who came forward to talk about their personal experience.

We absolutely must listen to the voices of victims and their families as we progress the reforms to the scheme. Indeed, that is vital if we are to take a victim-centred and trauma-informed approach to the changes that we need in the victim notification scheme. As well as engaging with victim support organisations and our justice partners, we will engage through the victims task force and other means to collaborate appropriately for victims.

Thank you, convener, and good morning.

I welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee to give evidence on Scotland’s compliance with the Aarhus convention. As members of the committee will know, the convention consists of three pillars: access to environmental information for any citizen; the right to public participation in decision making; and access to justice in environmental matters. My portfolio responsibilities relate to the access to justice pillar.

We are all very appreciative of the detailed work that the ACCC undertook to ensure compliance with this important convention. It is a complex and cross-cutting area of work that touches on a number of different policy areas. Enormous strides have been made towards compliance under the current Government. Despite that, at a meeting of the parties in October 2021, the ACCC found both Scotland and the rest of the UK as a whole to be non-compliant. The ACCC had previously welcomed Scotland’s significant progress in 2018, and work is on-going to strengthen compliance in the areas of concern that the ACCC identified in its most recent decision. We are optimistic that further progress will be recognised, following the submission of our update later this month.

Officials have continued to work with our counterparts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and in both the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly to provide a response to the ACCC that addresses the concerns that have been raised.

I am happy to answer questions, convener.

Sure. Several issues were raised in the report, and I can highlight probably four on which action has been taken since it was published.

The first issue is cost protection on appeal. Under a rule change enacted in June 2024, reclaiming is progressed in the same manner, regardless of whether it is a petitioner or the respondent who is appealing the original decision. The rule change clarifies that court fees are included in the cost cap and also addresses the issue that was raised by the ACCC.

Another issue related to protective expenses orders. A rule change was enacted, prompting a petitioner to request confidentiality when they lodge a motion requesting a protective expenses order, and in the event of a hearing, it would be heard in chambers, from which the public would be excluded. A rule change was also enacted in June 2024 with regard to interveners. The Scottish Government has taken action to clarify that a potential litigant’s exposure to an intervener’s costs is likely to be nil, providing that they act reasonably.

In relation to court fees, following a public consultation in 2022, an exemption from such fees was introduced for Aarhus cases raised in the Court of Session. Therefore, the ACCC’s concern over whether court fees would be included in cost caps has become redundant, which has been welcomed by all stakeholders and environmental NGOs.

Several other issues were raised for proposed action, but I do not know whether you want me to cover all of them, too, or whether you are happy with that progress.