���˿���

The amendments in this group are giving me a bit more cause for concern. It is not that I disagree that remorse should be taken into account, but the amendments are as much to do with the release of prisoners as they are about victims. Again, we have not had much opportunity to understand the whole basis on which prisoners are released, other than that they have the opportunity, once they have served either 50 per cent or two thirds of their sentence, to go to the Parole Board.

Do you happen to know whether remorse is a consideration at the moment? I presume that orders for lifelong restriction do not go through the same process, so they will not be included. I just do not know the answer to that question. I would be surprised if there were no passing discussion, at least, with the Parole Board as to whether remorse was a factor. I know that, in relation to orders for lifelong restriction, psychological reports will be drawn up in which remorse is a factor, because what is being considered is not only the risk to victims but the wider risk to communities. There could be a risk of harm to a victim, to more than one victim or to communities. That is, I imagine, a different consideration, although it is still a question of safety, risk and all the rest of it.

I think that you can see where I am going with this. There is a lot of complexity to the debate. If the Government is going to come back on this at stage 3, as I think it will be doing on the other amendments, I will be content with that. However, I feel that there is much more to the issue than the impact on victims; it is about the whole mechanism and process of release for prisoners. To be honest, it surprises me that the amendment was allowed, because it is about the release of prisoners. However, it would be helpful to know if that is already a consideration by the Parole Board.

Amendment 145 is a probing amendment. It makes the Government-led pilot for access to free court transcripts permanent. All members will be aware that Hannah Stakes, who campaigns on the issue, says that there have been 84 applications for transcripts to date and that she has been contacted numerous times by those who have applied, articulating the importance of the issue to them personally.

Eamon Keane, a solicitor who acts for victims of sexual violence, said that, in his view, the free pilot has aided his work greatly and that

“The transcript of evidence is often the only comprehensive and objective account of what was or was not said in cross-examination in a case.”

He goes on to say:

“Clients understandably only have a partial memory of the process of giving evidence. That is a critical point. I can think of two cases in which, without the transcript, matters would have dragged on to everyone’s detriment”.

Angela Constance has said that most of the applications have been made to seek some degree of closure and recovery, in keeping with the emphasis on the trauma-informed and person-centred aspect of the pilot. I would like to put on the record how much I welcome the cabinet secretary’s extension of this important pilot. I know that she is committed to it, but I want to probe the issue and ensure that we have it on the record that I want to see it as a permanent measure, although I accept that it needs to be tried and tested.

I move amendment 145.

Will the member give way?

I agree with what you have said about the abuse that goes on, but do you agree that what is not helping women, particularly those in domestic abuse cases, get to court and in front of a sheriff in the first place is the lack of legal aid provision? Some people see this as a criminal matter—and it is—but the situation is really impacting on women who are trying to access legal aid for such cases.

Very briefly. These amendments are in keeping with the theme of a victim’s right to know. As Russell Findlay and Jamie Greene have said, one of the takeaways for the committee when it listened to victims was that they did not feel part of the case in which they were the main complainer. I am very sympathetic to that.

I want to make a few points that are relevant here. First, I am not aware of the current situation. I remember that a former Lord Advocate—I think that it was Colin Boyd—announced to Parliament that, for the first time, the Crown Office would tell complainers and victims why it did not proceed with the cases, when it previously did not do so at all. I have no objection to putting that in law, but I want to know whether the Government is minded to say what the current position is and—

Yes, I agree. It is a principle, but it is for the Government to see how it could bring it about, if it agrees, to make it an efficient part of the system.

Of course I will.

I agree with that. I was also going to say that, between stages 2 and 3, the committee should do something in relation to the Parole Board for Scotland. There has been a long delay between stages 1 and 2—to be fair, I imagine that the Government is trying to resolve other issues in parts 4 and 5—and, arguably, there might have been scope to do a bit more consultation. However, I think that everybody knows that the demands of scrutinising the bill are all-encompassing.

For those reasons, I will probably abstain on most of the amendments if they are put to a vote. That is because, although I agree with what Jamie Greene is saying, I am not comfortable with not hearing from the Parole Board. If, in principle, victims are able to say what they feel about the release of a prisoner—and it is right that they should do so—that could impact on whether that prisoner is released. If I have understood the principle behind it, and if it is not just a talking shop that a victim would go along to in order to say how they felt, we would expect the Parole Board to consider that.

Amendment 245 is about the release of prisoners, which requires a separate discussion.

There are other amendments on the Parole Board, and I feel strongly that we need to hear from the Parole Board on all of those. I hope that whoever makes the decisions about timetables, in consultation with the committee, can allow some time for that.

Good morning. I will rehearse similar arguments about creating a commissioner. My question is not whether a victims commissioner could make a difference but what, overall, could make a difference to the framework for victims.

The commissioner is not able to represent individuals; it is a monitoring role. I know that the Government has tried to beef up the role—I would certainly welcome that if it happens—but leadership makes a bigger difference. The leadership shown by the current Lord Advocate, the Government and the criminal justice agencies has made the biggest difference to victims’ experiences. I know that that rests on who is appointed to those roles, but that is what I firmly believe.

I support where Scottish Women’s Aid is coming from. There is limited money to spend on improving victims’ experiences and I would rather that it was spent on what the Government is already doing on independent legal representation and making court transcripts available to victims. We are also going to discuss whether advocacy, as set out in Jamie Greene’s and Maggie Chapman’s amendments, could make a difference to individuals. If the Government is going to spend money on improving victims’ experiences, I would rather that that money was focused on individuals than the system itself, if there is a choice—sometimes it is a choice. I do not object to there being a victims commissioner, but the question is about how you want to spend your money and resource.

We must be mindful that the Parliament has created a number of commissioners and that they are not all equal. It could be more important to have some commissioners than others. For example, it might be that an older persons commissioner is needed because there are different gaps in provision, so I do not think that all commissioners should be treated in the same way. However, a review is on-going and the Government did not even consider whether there could be an overarching commissioner who could appoint individual commissioners for certain things. That was debated and we have not looked at that model; the only model that is being put to us is what is in the bill.

For those reasons, I am minded to support amendment 1. If Sharon Dowey does not press amendment 1, and if she moves amendment 235, I will support that, so that we can at least test the commissioner for five years and see whether it makes a difference.

I recognise the power of work that Jamie Greene has done for victims, and I will try to support as much as I can of what the Government supports because of that. You have done an incredible amount of detailed work, and that is to be applauded. However, I will address some technical issues about whether we should be having the debate now, especially the debate on amendment 245.

I agree with virtually every word that Jamie Greene said about the right of victims to be notified in advance, as well as the statement by Victim Support Scotland. However, here is my problem. I have been doing this for some time, but I have never understood why amendments are grouped in the way they are. It is a mystery—I think that other members agree with that—and I have unsuccessfully challenged groupings in the past. The reason why groupings are important is that, if unrelated issues are debated in the same group, it detracts from the quality of the debate. This grouping started off being about notification, so that is what we were discussing. However, amendment 245 seems to stand out from that, from my point of view, because it deals with the release of prisoners, albeit that it relates to victims. I therefore think that amendment 245 has been wrongly placed.

Everybody in this room knows about all the work that goes into the bill process—I cannot imagine what it must be like to be the bill team or the officials trying to put it all together—but we do not see the groupings until Friday evening, and it is not possible to challenge them. I think that amendment 245 has been placed in the wrong grouping, and I will say why. Katy Clark also mentioned this.

The scrutiny of the bill gives me cause for concern. I am sure that all members, regardless of where they come from, know that we spent an awfully long time on sections 4 and 5 of the bill, which are about the size of juries and the sexual offences court and which are really complex, although it was probably not as much time as I would have liked to spend focusing on the detail of amendment 245. I am being candid about the ability of a committee to deal with a bill of this size and to do it well. In that context, the groupings are really important.

We have not asked the Parole Board for Scotland for its view, although that is fundamental to my view about how I might vote on the amendment. I would like to hear the other side of the argument, but I am very sympathetic to Jamie Greene’s arguments.