Chamber and committees

I have been listening to the points that the cabinet secretary has made. However, the committee heard lots of evidence from victims, and their main issue was that they were not being kept up to date with anything that was going on in the system. Surely, if the prosecutor knows that they are not going to take any further action, they should notify the victim. If further information comes up at a later date that means that they will then prosecute, they should go and update the victim again and say that they are now going to take further action. It is best practice to keep the victim up to date so that they know what is happening with any proceedings.

I seek clarification on amendment 68, which imposes a test whereby ministers will decide whether information about the release of an offender should be given directly to a child, and “have regard to” their “age and maturity” in doing so. Can you clarify whether there are any circumstances in which a 17-year-old would request that information but would be denied it?

Non-harassment orders are a vital tool in protecting victims from further harm. They can be used to prohibit an offender from contacting or approaching a victim and so enable the police to intervene to prevent further harassment, even where the offender’s behaviour might not otherwise constitute a criminal offence.

Amendment 3 would extend the duty that currently applies in domestic abuse cases—in which the courts must always consider whether to make an NHO to protect the victim, without the need for the prosecutor to make an application for such an order—so that it would also apply in all cases involving sexual offences, stalking and intimate image abuse. By requiring the court to consider an NHO in those cases, the amendment would ensure that the court must actively consider in every case whether an NHO is required to protect the victim and that it must make such an order unless it considers that it is not necessary to do so to protect the victim.

In addition, members might be aware that NHOs in domestic abuse cases can make provision in favour of a child who normally resides with the victim or the perpetrator, or both. In view of the fact that stalking offences often involve a perpetrator who is fixated on the victim and who may seek to target their family to continue to abuse the victim, amendment 3 would extend that power to cover people who are convicted of stalking.

I know that members across the chamber share a commitment to strengthening protections for victims.

I move amendment 3.

I have no further comments. I press amendment 3.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendment 147 moved—[Pam Gosal].

Amendment 147A moved—[Pam Gosal]—and agreed to.

Amendment 147, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 148 moved—[Maggie Chapman].

Amendment 104 requires that, in cases where the victim is eligible to make a victim impact statement, the court must allow for the statement to be read aloud in court.

There is currently no requirement for a victim impact statement to be read aloud in court, but I think that the voices of victims must be heard. The statement could be read by the victim where they have requested to do so, or by the judge or sheriff.

Given concerns about the possible length of the statements, I have provided for the court to have discretion as to whether the statement is read out

“in whole or in part.”

Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid have expressed support for my amendment. I have worked closely on the issue with Victim Support Scotland, which told me that one of the main issues with victim impact statements is that victims spend time writing out their feelings in the expectation that they will be shared in court, but they have no idea whether their statement will be read out or not. That most certainly causes victims unnecessary anxiety in an already stress-inducing and traumatising situation. Scottish Women’s Aid says that it backs the amendment because the process needs urgent attention and reform. In particular, it seeks support for women’s agency and their right to make a statement.

I was going to come back to that point in answer to Jamie Greene. Where the amendment says that the statement is to be read by

“the person who made the statement if that person requests to do so,”

I was trying to make the point that they would not have to read it aloud in court, but if they wanted to do that, they could.

Throughout the committee’s evidence sessions, we heard from victims who said that they felt that they were a witness in their own case and that they did not get the chance to speak. They felt as if the key points of their case were not brought up in court, and they had no engagement. They felt that the proposal in the amendment would give them the chance to tell the court about the impact of the crime on them.

Yes—that is where the discretion is. The statement could be read in part, so it could be shortened. The full statement could be read out, or the court could be made aware of the key points.

In drafting the amendment, my intention was to allow a statement to be read aloud in court if the victim requested that. Victims do not have that choice at the moment. It would mean that either the victim could read it, if they requested to do so, or they could get the judge or the sheriff to read it aloud. It could be a long statement or a short statement, so the amendment allows for discretion in whether part of the statement is read rather than the full thing, as obviously there are time constraints in court.

My amendment 96 would give the victims commissioner the power to request information from local authorities and social housing providers for the purpose of determining the support that they are providing to victims and witnesses. The amendment was suggested to me by Victim Support Scotland, which backs it.

All MSPs will be aware from their casework that local authorities and social housing providers play a key role in supporting victims. The power to request information from them will help the commissioner to assess the support that those bodies are providing to victims, and their compliance with the victims code.

Amendments 97 to 100 are all technical amendments in consequence of amendment 96.

I have concerns about the potential for a victims commissioner to drain resources from victims support services. However, I recognise that, if the bill passes, we will have one, and so we must give them the tools that they need to create change for victims. There is no point in having a commissioner if they cannot hold all relevant agencies to account.

If any MSP has ever been contacted by a constituent who has been failed by a local authority or social housing provider, they should back my amendment today on their behalf.

On the basis that the amendment is supported by Victim Support Scotland, I will move it.

Amendment 96 moved—[Sharon Dowey].