Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Justice Committee 19 November 2013

19 Nov 2013 · S4 · Justice Committee

Item of business

Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

MacAskill, Kenny SNP Edinburgh Eastern Watch on SPTV

Amendments 33 and 35 to 37 are technical drafting amendments relating to the terminology that is used in reference to operation of the restitution fund. They have been lodged in order to clarify that the Scottish ministers have the power to administer the fund, which they may delegate, and that they may make provision by order for the fund’s administration.The operation of the restitution fund—which will receive money that is raised from restitution orders that are imposed for police assault, and will disburse them to the designated recipients—will necessarily involve administrative expenses. Amendment 34 will ensure that those expenses may be defrayed from the fund by adding the Scottish ministers and those administering the fund to the persons to whom payments may be made out of the fund.Amendments 38 and 43, 45 and 46 are mostly technical amendments to the subordinate legislation-making powers relating to the victims surcharge; they will slightly alter the terminology. As with my amendments on the restitution fund, the amendments clarify that the Scottish ministers have the power to administer the fund, which they may delegate, and that they may make provision for the fund’s administration.Amendment 46 will also remove the reference in new section 253G(6) of the Criminal Procedures (Scotland) Act 1995 to the regulation-making power being used and, in particular, to make provisions specifying persons or classes of person to whom, or in respect of whom, payments may be made out of the fund. I consider that the restrictions in the bill relating to the persons to whom payments can be made are sufficient and that such provisions are therefore highly unlikely to be made.As with the restitution fund, the operator of the victim surcharge fund will inevitably incur administrative costs. It would be unreasonable to expect the operator to bear the cost of administering the fund himself. Amendment 42 therefore provides that operational expenses may be taken from the fund. Where administration of the fund is delegated to a third party—which is our intention—the Scottish ministers must consent to such expenses being taken from the fund.Amendments 44 and 47 are minor technical amendments that will allow subordinate legislation under proposed new sections 253F and 253G of the 1995 act to be made in a single instrument.Amendment 90, in the name of Graeme Pearson, seeks to prevent the victim surcharge fund from being used to supplement or replace other payments that are made out of the Scottish consolidated fund. As I have stated previously, the victim surcharge fund is being established for the specific purpose of providing immediate and practical assistance to victims of crime; it is not intended to be used to replace the current or future Government funding of victim support services. Indeed, it is our intention to delegate administration of the fund to Victim Support Scotland and for it to distribute funds as appropriate, with the Scottish Government having no role in the day-to-day operation of the fund. In those circumstances, payments out of the fund would be made not by the Scottish ministers but by the operator to whom administration of the fund has been delegated. Amendment 90 would be of no effect in those circumstances, because the operator will have no say on how or to whom payments are made out of the Scottish consolidated fund.In addition, the Scottish ministers currently support a number of victims organisations through payments from the consolidated fund. Amendment 90 could have the effect of preventing payments being made to those organisations from the victim surcharge fund, because they could be seen as supplementary payments to those that were being made from the consolidated fund. There is also a risk that the inclusion of such a provision in the bill would create an implication that the absence of such a provision elsewhere in the bill or other statutes would mean that funds such as the victim surcharge fund could be used to relieve the pressure on the Scottish consolidated fund. I therefore consider amendment 90 to be completely unnecessary, and I ask Graeme Pearson not to move it.I move amendment 33.

Search Hansard contributions

Justice Committee 19 November 2013

In the same item of business