Seòmar agus comataidhean

Turning to the other amendments in the group, I am sympathetic to their underlying aim of ensuring that victims are able to effectively exercise their right to access information and support services.

Katy Clark’s amendment 61 would, in effect, mean that all victims would automatically be registered for the VNS without their knowledge or consent, even if they did not know about the scheme, understand it or want to sign up to it. I am keen to try to avoid the terminology of “opt in” and “opt out”, if possible. My amendments seek to ensure that victims are able to make informed and supported choices and to fully exercise their entitlements to information at a time and a pace that suit them best, as individuals.

I know that amendment 61 is well intentioned, but, if my amendments are agreed to, it will fundamentally change the context in which the VNS operates in future by providing the same entitlements to all victims. If entitlements were expanded to victims in cases where the sentence was under 18 months, there would be, in many cases, only a short period in which there would be an opportunity to opt out for those who wished to do so. The victim might be presented with information that they did not want and had not asked for, without an opportunity to express their preference.

Instead, as I have set out, the existence of the victim contact team will allow for automatic referral to that team, which can discuss a victim’s rights and entitlements directly with them. That will help ensure an informed choice and agency for the victim.

In addition, amendment 61 would not allow for sufficient consideration of a child victim’s best interests or their views. There might also be significant data protection issues in relation to the sharing of data in order, in effect, to register an individual for a scheme in which sensitive and potentially distressing information could be communicated to them without their express consent. I know that the committee received a letter in relation to that yesterday.

I am clear that criminal justice agencies throughout the system must be as proactive as possible in ensuring that victims are aware of their rights and able to exercise them. I have set out how the victim contact team will enable that for the VNS, and wider work is being taken forward under the auspices of the victims task force, which will consider the matter across the whole system. However, it is important that, in doing that, we respect as far as possible the victim’s choices and their ability to express them and have them respected. I am concerned that amendment 61 does not adequately take that into account, so I urge the committee to oppose it.

Again, I understand the intentions behind Jamie Greene’s amendments. Amendment 237 would place a broader responsibility on Police Scotland to refer victims to support services unless the victim explicitly chose not to be referred. I can see benefits in ensuring that connections are made to all support organisations and that the offer of support that might follow remains subject to the victim’s choice.

However, before I can give the amendment my full support, I would like to engage with Police Scotland and victim support organisations on the matter and ensure that due diligence on data requirements is carried out, including by the Scottish Information Commissioner. I suggest to Jamie Greene is that, if I can carry out that work ahead of stage 3, we can discuss the issue further, with the aim of agreeing a suitable stage 3 amendment that would meet Mr Greene’s underlying policy aim.

I also make the same offer in relation to Mr Greene’s amendment 238, which would require the Parole Board for Scotland to refer victims to support services, unless the victim explicitly chose not to be referred. Again, the amendment is well intentioned, but I want to engage with the Parole Board for Scotland to understand the operational implications and the data requirement issues with that amendment. My offer to Jamie Greene is that I will do that work ahead of stage 3, and I am happy to meet and discuss it further with him.

Convener, I will jump to amendment 244 and again make an offer to Mr Greene to discuss further detail ahead of stage 3. I agree that certain areas with regard to the timing of the provision of information could be improved, and I am happy to work with Mr Greene on achieving that.

As for the final two amendments in the group, I do not support amendment 243 from Mr Greene, because it reflects existing processes and legislation and does not take into account the changes that we are seeking to introduce with the merging of the VNS and the victim impact statement and the underpinning for the victim contact team. I am happy to discuss the aims and intentions for the VNS and the contact team in more detail with Mr Greene.

I accept the principle behind amendment 245 of seeking to give victims more choice to make oral representations in the parole process. However, I understand that primary legislation is not required to make such a change, as relevant powers under section 17(13) of the 2003 act allow for that to be done by regulation. There might also be questions of proportionality and appropriate resourcing in applying that right to all parole cases, where the option is currently limited to life sentences. I would be happy to discuss the matter further with Mr Greene ahead of stage 3, and to consider how it is done in other jurisdictions.

I urge the committee to support the amendments in my name, and ask members to oppose the other amendments in the group, if they are moved. The committee should also note that I am happy to discuss any other details further with members.

I move amendment 172.

That is part of it. As I said in my opening remarks, there has been a delay in issuing the voluntary code of practice because of pressures on the team. We are looking at doing that within the next six months. The draft has gone to key stakeholders to try to simplify the process. That will be in addition to what will be online on the Scottish Government’s website.

Does anyone else have any views on how the voluntary code of practice will help?

I would like to give it some further thought, but we are always open to new suggestions as to how we can simplify the process. I am probably putting my colleagues on the spot, but I do not know whether they have any initial thoughts about the legal implications of Mr Ewing’s suggestion, or whether it is simply a case of our going away and thinking about it.

Legal aid is available for people who apply and are eligible for it. There should be no problem with anyone accessing justice if they would like to.

Yes, that is my understanding. Do my officials want to say anything other than that?

Yes, I think that it is. However, we do not have the exact number of how many dismissals there have been in the past 10 years; it has not been specifically on my radar in my ministerial role for the past two years per se. However, if there are ways in which we can improve the system, the Scottish Government is always willing to look at them.

I would like them to do it.

If I could, convener, I would like to start with a few opening remarks to provide a bit of clarity, as there is a bit of crossover between my portfolio and that of the Minister for Housing on the issue.

Thanks very much, everybody, for the opportunity to talk about the dismissal and the appointment of property factors, and to provide an update on the progress of the voluntary code of practice for the dismissal and the replacement of land-owning land maintenance companies.

My property law portfolio responsibility covers the dismissal and the appointment of property factors—sometimes referred to as switching—which includes the land-owning land maintenance companies. The Minister for Housing has portfolio responsibilities for the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011, which includes the register of properties factors and the code of conduct. My comments will focus specifically on my portfolio.

I know that the petitioner has called for legislation to cover the dismissal of property factors. Legislation is already in place that deals with that matter. If the title deeds of a property do not set out how the property factors are to be dismissed, provisions under the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 will apply.

As I have indicated in my previous responses to the committee, I consider that the existing remedies by which home owners might dismiss a factor are adequate and that a legislative change at this time is not necessary. I note that, in its response to the petition, Under One Roof said that the process to dismiss a property factor is not clear—I will come on to that—while the Property Managers Association Scotland considered that the current legislation on the matter is sufficient.

I recognise, however, that some home owners find the procedure to switch property factors complicated. A guidance note on manager burdens will be published shortly on the Scottish Government website, which will help home owners to navigate the various options with regard to establishing voting procedures.

I have spoken to my officials this morning and the website says that the guidance will be published shortly. I am told that the timescale is within the next few weeks, but there are a few technical issues with the graphics that are being added to the website.

It is guidance on the various options for how voting procedures should be carried out when dealing with factors.

I appreciate the petitioner’s comments and his experience, but it is quite rare that this has happened with factors. However, we need to ensure that a process is in place for anybody who wants to remove a factor. Usually, that is in the title deeds, so it would be unusual if that was not in place.

Moving forward, if someone feels intimidated because they have to get legal advice or go through the court process, I think that they should feel supported through our guidance. My officials might want to come in with something further here.