Seòmar agus comataidhean

I could not envisage whether that will be the case. I have not been able to determine that exactly, so I am not really in a position, at this stage, to say whether we will see that happening or not. I think that Mr Golden is quite right to say that that could be the case, but I am not in a position to say that we would see more people being prosecuted.

Yes, I am.

As I said, stage 2 of that bill has just finished and the cabinet secretary has committed to looking at victim impact statements. I will ask Jim Wilson to comment on how that could impact section 3 of this bill.

I am happy to look into that. I will not commit to amending it, but it can be considered.

I will bring in Jim Wilson, but I do not have any strong views on the financial memorandum. I know from the evidence session that it was very hard to determine exact figures at that stage.

Just for clarity, the 2020 act made a number of amendments to animal welfare, animal health and wildlife legislation, and animal welfare is under Jim Fairlie’s portfolio, not the justice portfolio.

Under the legislation, Scottish ministers are obliged to review whether the 2020 act’s provisions are sufficient to ensure appropriate standards of animal welfare, animal health and the protection of wildlife. In August last year, when Mr Fairlie put out the review, the need for specific provisions on pet theft was considered. The Scottish Government sought views from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Police Scotland, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Dogs Trust and the Scottish Sentencing Council on the current approach to pet theft, such as the laws used, the effectiveness of those laws and any proposal to introduce a new statutory offence of pet theft.

After considering the matter last year, the Scottish Government review concluded that we would not seek to legislate on pet theft. There appeared to be no consensus on whether such a move was necessary, but the Scottish Government was also aware that Mr Golden’s bill was being introduced.

As I said, we are taking a neutral stance at this stage, so nothing could prevent us from perhaps supporting it. However, as the Scottish Government, we want to look at the letter from the committee and the many points that were raised in it. We have not really had a chance to go into detail on that, because we received it only yesterday. We also want to look at the stage 1 report. I am happy to engage with the member further on the issue at that stage.

Yes.

Yes, it is.

It is amendment 172, which enacts our decision to merge the victim notification scheme and the victim information scheme. As we move forward with this, all victims will be contacted by the victim contact team. This is the underpinning legislation. You will see, when we move to the other amendments, that there will also be a legal gateway for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to provide data to the victim contact team so that victims can be contacted.

In short, this is the underpinning legislation to allow for data to be given to the victim contact team so that victims can be contacted.

There is a lot to respond to there. First, I will respond on Katy Clark’s amendment 61. I appreciate that it is unusual for this issue to be introduced at stage 2, with the minister and cabinet secretary leading on different parts of the bill, but I think that everybody appreciates that we really wanted to expedite VNS reform and the bill was the only vehicle through which to do that. I appreciate that, when Ms Clark initially lodged the amendment, it was unclear where we were going to end up today, but the amendment would not sit well in the bill. Having said that, I support the intention behind the amendment and am willing to work with Ms Clark before stage 3, so that we have support in place for victims.

A lot of issues have been raised by Mr Greene and Ms Clark. The victim contact team will be providing support to all victims. I have a spiel about it to read out, but I think that I did that at an earlier meeting, so I will not go through it now. I am happy to sit down with any member who wants to know exactly what the victim contact team hopes to achieve and discuss how we will take it forward from there. Ultimately, we do not want victims finding out that people have been released from prison by bumping into them at the supermarket. We are expediting reform of the victim notification scheme so that we have the victim contact team up and running. All victims will be contacted and can make an informed choice about what information they want.

Moving on to Mr Greene’s amendments, I can see the benefits of amendment 237, as I said, and I am happy to speak to Mr Greene about it. The same applies to amendment 238, which is well intentioned. However, we would need to engage with the Parole Board.

On amendment 243, it is not clear how the provision would operate within the current opt-in model. The amendment relies on the victim electing to receive notifications. However, it is not obvious how the amendment would work, as it suggests that the victim would have turned down an opportunity to receive information when they simply did not request it. A victim can elect to join the VNS at any point, and not just at the first point of contact. Amendment 243 may inadvertently suggest that that is not the case and that it is limited to a second chance-like timescale. That also applies to the changes that have been sought to section 17, whereby a victim is afforded an opportunity to make representations before an offender is released. I am aware that the amendment is, arguably, not trauma informed, but I am happy to discuss it further with Mr Greene.

On amendment 245, I am sympathetic to the principle of giving victims the choice to make oral representations in a greater number of cases in which parole is being considered, and I know that Pauline McNeill has raised the issue as well. However, as I mentioned, given the issue of proportionality and the need to consider the resource implications, I do not know whether it would be right to agree to the amendment at stage 2. Obviously, we would have to look at the financial memorandum, and we would need to scope the cost of all of that. That is why I ask members not to support amendment 245 at this stage.

Amendment 172 agreed to.

Amendments 173 to 178 moved—[Siobhian Brown].