���˿���

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, ���˿��� 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.

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.