Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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, MSPs 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.

Amendment 89 would require that regulations be brought forward on reporting of the tax and ownership status of publicly owned care services, and amendment 90 seeks to extend freedom of information rights to publicly owned care services. The minister and her officials were kind enough to meet me yesterday and offered to have further discussions before stage 3.

I indicated to the minister that I was not planning on pressing either amendment to a vote today and am very open to discussions about their drafting. There are specific issues relating to the definition of care. I advise that the definition that I seek to rely on is the one that is in the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002. I would, of course, be happy to discuss the matter.

The background is that we have moved away from having a care sector that was dominated by publicly owned and run organisations providing publicly paid-for care. Of the 42,489 registered care home places in March 2022, 77 per cent were in privately run care homes and 80 per cent of the staff of care homes are in the private sector. There is significant market concentration in much of Scotland, with the 10 largest for-profit care home providers accounting for more than a third of registered places.

A significant number of organisations are registered outside the UK and involve private equity and real-estate investment trusts and US-based hedge funds. Across the UK, the five largest chains amount for nearly 20 per cent of beds, according to work from 2016.

I will give an example that members might be aware of, or might have been involved in as constituency representatives—namely, the collapse in 2011 of Southern Cross Healthcare, which was owned by Blackstone Group. The consequences of that affected 31,000 care home residents, including in the constituency that I represented at the time. Many of those Southern Cross care homes were sold to Four Seasons Health Care, which is owned by Jersey-based private equity firm, Terra Firma. In April 2017, 220 care homes and 17,000 residents were affected when that organisation, too, became bankrupt.

Four Seasons, like many private equity operations, consisted of complex corporate structures. The Financial Times reported that it consisted of 200 companies, arranged in 12 layers, in at least five jurisdictions, including several offshore territories. Tax avoidance and profit shifting were central to the operations.

Both my amendments are based on the principles of transparency, following the public pound and that, where publicly funded care is provided by organisations other than public authorities, there should be freedom of information rights and transparency in relation to tax and ownership. As the committee will be aware, freedom of information rights do not exist outside public authorities. That was particularly evident during Covid, when information that relatives were able to obtain using rights that they had with local authority providers was not available from other providers.

Jackie Baillie has spoken this morning about the experience of families during Covid. The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, which the Scottish Parliament passed in 2002, was designed to be flexible and to enable, under section 5, the addition of named providers or categories. In reality, that power has rarely been used by ministers. Since Covid, families of care home residents and freedom of information campaigners have been frustrated by the lack of progress.

Members of Parliament expressed their frustration in 2013, when updating of designations under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 resulted in an amendment that required reports from ministers every two years, on use of the section 5 power. Despite that, the power has basically been used to report that no action has been taken. There was a Scottish Government consultation in 2019 on use of the section 5 powers, and care was one of the examples that was focused on. That could have resulted in the extension to care services of designations under the act, but the Scottish Government decided not to progress with that.

In May 2022, the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee of this Parliament reported, in its inquiry on the operation of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, that public sector bodies that deliver public sector services should be subject to freedom of information rights. The Scottish Information Commissioner has consistently called for the designation of providers of health and social care services as subject to the 2002 act, especially following the Covid pandemic. Repeated polling by the commissioner has shown public support for that principle, and the consultation that I held for my proposed member’s bill on freedom of information reform in 2022 showed overwhelming support for the principle.