Chamber and committees

One of the considerations is the view of the Parole Board of Scotland, as it will have a great deal of knowledge of the operational aspects of the amendments. Have you been able to ascertain views beyond those of the organisations and individuals that you mentioned?

I, too, am very grateful to the members for their work and for bringing these issues to the committee. It would be helpful to have a better understanding of the differences between the approaches. Under Maggie Chapman’s proposal, making a non-harassment order is not mandatory, including in situations in which the victim does not want a non-harassment order for some reason—there are reasons why some victims would not want a non-harassment order. I am more sympathetic towards that approach.

However, I noticed that Maggie Chapman supports Sharon Dowey’s amendment 241. It would be helpful to know whether Sharon Dowey’s amendment would also mean that there would be situations in which a court would not make a non-harassment order because of the specific circumstances of a case. We would always want the court to have discretion, given that it would be fully aware of all the facts.

The point that was made about the low usage of non-harassment orders is powerful.

The point that was made about the low usage of non-harassment orders is powerful. This is an attempt to shift the onus so that there is a presumption that, in most situations, it is appropriate that the offender should not approach the victim, particularly when there have been bail conditions. It would seem to be appropriate in those situations to continue an order of the court so that there is no contact, as long as there is the provision that representations can be made when that is not appropriate.

I am sympathetic to what the members are trying to do, but we need to get the detail right. I look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say.

Will the member take an intervention?

It is similar to the intervention that I made earlier. Have you had discussions with the Risk Management Authority about how orders for lifelong restriction are dealt with?

I am very sympathetic to the case that Jamie Greene is making, but what does he believe would be the legal status of a victims charter and why would the victims commissioner be the one to draft the charter? The victims commissioner would, in essence, have an advocacy role. We could have a victims charter whether or not we have a commissioner, but, if there was a commissioner, why does Mr Greene feel that they should draft the charter?

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Thank you. I wanted to ask about the issues relating to the rights of victims and complainers to information. The discussion on that was very similar to the discussion on the group of amendments about the victim notification scheme.

Does the cabinet secretary not accept that most victims and complainers want access to information and that we have to incorporate that into our systems? Obviously, we must make it clear that people do not have to get that information and that—I know that you do not want to use the word “opt-out”—they can decide not to get it. However, most victims and complainers want that information. Does the cabinet secretary accept that?

I listened to what the minister said with great interest. I have to say that we were not able to scrutinise these issues at stage 1, which would have been appropriate, and it is unfortunate that the Scottish Government is lodging such complex amendments at this stage. The issues are of massive concern to the committee and the Parliament. Very few victims opt in to the victim notification scheme. Concerns about that have been raised by victims, victims organisations, MSPs and many others on many occasions.

Amendment 61 relates to the victim’s rights to information. It was initially lodged as a probing amendment, seeking to shift the onus so that the presumption is that victims will be provided with information about, for example, the release of an offender, but also that they would always be given the clear opportunity to indicate that they do not want that information. I suspect that every member of the committee will have spoken to victims who have been greatly concerned about finding out something about their situation, their case and an offender that they have not been told about in the appropriate way or did not get information about until much later.

The amendment would remove from the victim the onus of having to go through what I understand is a complex process to seek and complete a form and submit the completed application. As the minister knows, our understanding of how the process works is that the issue is usually raised only at the beginning of proceedings.

I appreciate that the Scottish Government has looked at the issue, and I listened carefully to what the minister said about her proposed reforms. However, we need to look at introducing an opt-out process, so that victims are provided with appropriate information unless they indicate that they would prefer not to have it, as will be some victims’ preference. We should give them adequate opportunities to explore whether they want to have such information, and we need to get the legal framework correct.

I also listened to what the minister said about children. I have dealt with a number of cases that involved children as victims or, indeed, children whose family members were victims—for example, perhaps the father was the victim. That is not a scenario that my amendment covers, but the minister is absolutely right that we have to get the scheme’s detail right on that. We also have to accept that children often want access to information, which needs to be provided in an age-appropriate way, and that the process might involve family members or guardians. As the children get older, they might wish to have more information, particularly in serious cases in which an offender has received a lengthy custodial sentence or the offence has had a life-altering impact on the family.

I will not move amendment 61 on this occasion, but I am greatly concerned about the detail in the Government amendments that have been lodged and not completely convinced by what the minister has said. If we had had a proper scrutiny process at stage 1, we would have benefited by ending up with far better legislation that would perhaps have received the committee’s full support. It is not acceptable that the Scottish Government has introduced such complex amendments at this stage.

It is not my intention to press the amendment today—I want to withdraw it.

Amendment 67, by agreement, withdrawn.

I will seek to withdraw amendment 60.

Amendment 60, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 86 and 87 not moved.