���˿���

I have listened carefully to what Jamie Greene said, but I think that we would want to know the position of the Parole Board and the Risk Management Authority, and get a lot more information before we enacted any of his amendments.

On Sharon Dowey’s amendments, it would be interesting to hear what she thinks the status would be of the summary of reasons that she is proposing. For example, could it be challenged? It would also bring another document and another set of reasons into the process. It would be useful to get more information on how that would be treated and its status, given the complex nature of the decisions made by the Risk Management Authority on risk. I do not know whether that is something that Sharon Dowey could come back on now or whether she could do so before stage 3.

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?

My amendment 67 was lodged last summer. Since then, the cabinet secretary has appeared before the committee, and I understand that there has been progress in starting work to bring in GPS electronic monitoring in a very narrow set of circumstances. I welcome that.

However, Scotland is well behind most other countries, including England, in the use of electronic monitoring generally, and specifically in relation to the use of GPS technology. The Scottish Government agrees that such monitoring would be suitable in many types of cases. Large numbers of people are in prison in Scotland and we know that many victims legitimately fear offenders, some of whom are a significant risk. However, some risks could potentially be more effectively managed and addressed by forms of electronic monitoring. Given the slow progress on the issue in Scotland, giving it more parliamentary scrutiny and attention could help it to become a Government priority. I hope that ministers in the justice portfolio find that helpful.

Amendment 67 calls for a report on the

“effectiveness of electronic monitoring requirements in protecting victims and witnesses”

to be published

“no later than 1 year after Royal Assent”

and laid before the Parliament. In particular, the report would set out

“whether the Scottish Ministers consider that the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology would improve the effectiveness of electronic monitoring requirements in protecting victims and witnesses”

and perhaps the range of circumstances in which that would be appropriate.

GPS-based electronic monitoring is a technology that is used successfully in many countries worldwide and offers the potential to enhance victim safety through proactive and real-time safeguards. GPS technology’s beneficial aspects include: the geofencing feature, which sets up virtual boundaries and allows for quick responses if offenders enter or leave designated areas; continuous surveillance; and more precise location flagging. Those features provide greater peace of mind for victims, particularly in domestic violence or stalking cases, and, depending on how the technology is used, could potentially reduce and prevent crime.

I know that the cabinet secretary has given thought to the issue and is working on it already. I hope that an amendment of this nature will be helpful in driving the use of technology in Scotland’s justice system and I look forward to her response.

I move amendment 67.

Although it might not be appropriate for a victim to be notified on every occasion—such as when an offender was attending a funeral, as they would usually be escorted—does Jamie Greene agree that, if an offender was starting to be let out on day release, it would be appropriate for the victim to know that they might see them? Pre-warning would enable the victim to plan and to deal with that.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this group. Amendment 60 would require that a review of trauma-informed practice in the justice system be undertaken by Scottish ministers within five years of royal assent. We know that our justice system has, unfortunately, often been a hostile environment for victims and survivors who have experienced traumatic events. I welcome the bill’s commitment to trauma-informed practice and standards, but there might be a risk that that becomes a slogan that does not materialise into substantive changes to practices in our justice system. The term “trauma-informed practice” may be used but the practice might not change—or might not change significantly.

My amendment would require a review of how a trauma-informed approach through the bill had changed practices in all parts of our justice system. That would include

“the functions and standards of service”

in the courts, in the parole system, in the police and in other parts of the justice system in so far as it relates to victims and witnesses. That could also include examining what changes we have seen in how our courts work, in the rules of court, in the guidance that is issued by the courts, and in the way that court staff, the Crown, the defence and other parts of the justice system, including prisons, have changed their behaviour as a result of the drive that we hope would take place as a result of the bill becoming an act.

The amendment would require the Scottish ministers, as soon as reasonably practical after completing the review, to prepare a report that included recommendations to ensure the continued

“effective implementation of trauma-informed practice”.

That report would be published and laid before the Scottish Parliament.

I move amendment 60.

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?