Chamber and committees

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.

Section 27 makes provision in relation to formulation of a scheme for distribution of the factory estate by a judicial factor. Where a person with an interest lodges an objection to the scheme prepared by the judicial factor, the Accountant of Court is required to refer the objection to the court. Under section 27(9) the court’s options are to either reject the objection and order distribution in line with the scheme prepared by the judicial factor, or to instruct the judicial factor to distribute the estate as the court thinks fit.

The Sheriffs and Summary Sheriffs Association suggested that a further option should be available to the court—namely, to make such other order as the court considers appropriate. Although it is anticipated that, in most cases, the court will order distribution of the estate, I consider that there might be circumstances where other orders, such as continuation of the judicial factory, may be appropriate. Amendment 22 adds further flexibility to section 27 by allowing the court to respond to the particular circumstances of a case.

I move amendment 22.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Section 27, as amended, agreed to.

Section 28—Application for distribution of factory estate

Amendment 23 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 28, as amended, agreed to.

Section 29—Termination, recall and discharge after distribution of factory estate

Amendment 24 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 29, as amended, agreed to.

Section 30—Duty of Accountant to apply for appointment of replacement where judicial factor has died or ceased to perform duties

Section 30 requires the Accountant of Court to apply for the appointment of a replacement judicial factor where the original factor dies or ceases to perform duties, where the Accountant of Court considers that the purpose for which the original factor was appointed still exists and that no application for replacement has been lodged by anyone else.

I have considered the provision further, however, and the bill does not set out what should happen when the original factor dies or ceases to perform their duties and the purpose for which they were appointed no longer exists, but some actions are still required to bring the judicial factory to an end. I consider that, in such circumstances, the judicial factory should be formally terminated following the processes under the bill and, where appropriate, the original factor discharged. Although that is not likely to be a common occurrence, amendment 25 is a sensible precaution to ensure that judicial factories are brought to a proper end and to avoid any doubts that might arise in such cases.

Amendments 26, 27 and 29 are all consequential amendments to reflect the addition of the new section 30(3A).

I move amendment 25.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

Amendments 26 and 27 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 30, as amended, agreed to.

Section 31—Resignation and applications for recall and discharge in other circumstances

Amendment 28 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 31, as amended, agreed to.

Section 32—Inventory and balance sheet where replacement judicial factor appointed

Amendment 29 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 32, as amended, agreed to.

Section 33—Termination of judicial factory where insufficient funds

Amendment 30 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 33, as amended, agreed to.

Section 34—Ending of judicial factor’s accountability on discharge

Amendment 31 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 34, as amended, agreed to.

Section 35—Accountant of Court: appointment, remuneration and fees