Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 19 June 2013
19 Jun 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The report states:
“witnesses asked for continuity in the support provided across the system.”
That is the important part. However, I think that we all agreed that allocating one person was just not practicable.
It has been suggested that there should be an online hub to give victims access to information on their individual cases. That would not be a bad thing, but it should not replace the human touch, because victims and witnesses need a bit of TLC. It is not good enough just to have a hub. Again, the information should be provided in plain English and not in the legal jargon that the lawyers, courts and police understand but which means nothing to civilians who are engaged in the process.
On vulnerable witnesses, there was particular concern that the bill will allow objections to requests for measures to protect child witnesses. We have concerns about the removal of the presumption that child witnesses under the age of 12 should give evidence away from court. That must not have the unintended consequence of children giving evidence in court against their will. We just flag that up as a bit of an orange light.
We appreciate that there might be absolutely justifiable practical reasons why the police could not comply with a witness request to specify the gender of their interviewer, but we suggest that, where that is not possible, a full explanation should be provided to the person concerned and should be included in the report to the procurator fiscal, so that everybody knows why that could not happen.
We see the possible merits of compensation orders, but we feel that the orders could be counterproductive and that it could be distressing for victims to be offered money from an offender, as it were. We therefore suggest that the issue should be dealt with sensitively by ensuring in the first place that the victim wants that to happen.
We have asked the Scottish Government to give further consideration to the merits of the proposal in the bill to introduce restitution orders. We accept that police officers and staff are at disproportionate risk of being assaulted while at work, but we believe that introducing restitution orders for police officers and not for those in other occupations could prove to be divisive. Where would one draw the line? Would we include firefighters, ambulance staff, teachers or shopkeepers? There are difficulties with that, which have already been aired in the press.
Just as participating effectively in a case should not lead to heightened expectations, victims should not have heightened expectations about the level of influence that they can have through any representations that they make to the Parole Board for Scotland. A victim might think that they have more influence than they actually have, which would be unfair and wrong. We therefore recommend the introduction of guidance so that no one misunderstands the position.
I will leave the issue of road death victims to other members, but we hope that we can get something into the bill on that. We recommended a statutory requirement to give people a right to ask for all information relating to a family member’s or loved one’s death in a road traffic accident, although not necessarily a right to receive everything. Other members can develop that.
We support the bill. We have identified a number of recommendations to improve certain provisions with a view to ensuring that the rights of the accused and those of victims and witnesses are balanced appropriately, which is terribly important. I have touched on some of the recommendations and I am sure that other committee members will pick up on some of the aspects of the bill that I have not had time to cover. I look forward to hearing the other speeches.
“witnesses asked for continuity in the support provided across the system.”
That is the important part. However, I think that we all agreed that allocating one person was just not practicable.
It has been suggested that there should be an online hub to give victims access to information on their individual cases. That would not be a bad thing, but it should not replace the human touch, because victims and witnesses need a bit of TLC. It is not good enough just to have a hub. Again, the information should be provided in plain English and not in the legal jargon that the lawyers, courts and police understand but which means nothing to civilians who are engaged in the process.
On vulnerable witnesses, there was particular concern that the bill will allow objections to requests for measures to protect child witnesses. We have concerns about the removal of the presumption that child witnesses under the age of 12 should give evidence away from court. That must not have the unintended consequence of children giving evidence in court against their will. We just flag that up as a bit of an orange light.
We appreciate that there might be absolutely justifiable practical reasons why the police could not comply with a witness request to specify the gender of their interviewer, but we suggest that, where that is not possible, a full explanation should be provided to the person concerned and should be included in the report to the procurator fiscal, so that everybody knows why that could not happen.
We see the possible merits of compensation orders, but we feel that the orders could be counterproductive and that it could be distressing for victims to be offered money from an offender, as it were. We therefore suggest that the issue should be dealt with sensitively by ensuring in the first place that the victim wants that to happen.
We have asked the Scottish Government to give further consideration to the merits of the proposal in the bill to introduce restitution orders. We accept that police officers and staff are at disproportionate risk of being assaulted while at work, but we believe that introducing restitution orders for police officers and not for those in other occupations could prove to be divisive. Where would one draw the line? Would we include firefighters, ambulance staff, teachers or shopkeepers? There are difficulties with that, which have already been aired in the press.
Just as participating effectively in a case should not lead to heightened expectations, victims should not have heightened expectations about the level of influence that they can have through any representations that they make to the Parole Board for Scotland. A victim might think that they have more influence than they actually have, which would be unfair and wrong. We therefore recommend the introduction of guidance so that no one misunderstands the position.
I will leave the issue of road death victims to other members, but we hope that we can get something into the bill on that. We recommended a statutory requirement to give people a right to ask for all information relating to a family member’s or loved one’s death in a road traffic accident, although not necessarily a right to receive everything. Other members can develop that.
We support the bill. We have identified a number of recommendations to improve certain provisions with a view to ensuring that the rights of the accused and those of victims and witnesses are balanced appropriately, which is terribly important. I have touched on some of the recommendations and I am sure that other committee members will pick up on some of the aspects of the bill that I have not had time to cover. I look forward to hearing the other speeches.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-06987, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on stage 1 of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill.I call Mr ...
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill)
SNP
I am grateful for the opportunity to open the stage 1 debate on the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill and I thank the Justice Committee and the Health an...
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Lab
Is the cabinet secretary saying that the existing law is not compatible with the ECHR? What does he have to say to Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Y...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
We would not have laws in this country that were not compatible with the ECHR, because of the nature of how this Parliament is established. I can assure Mr C...
Jenny Marra (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Does the cabinet secretary share the concerns of organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid that the challenge to the use of special measures may increase ci...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
I do not believe so. I met Scottish Women’s Aid just recently and I believe that, overall, the bill will provide what such agencies clearly desire. However, ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
Cabinet secretary, could you come to a conclusion?
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
People should not be denied the opportunity of acknowledgement—they should not be denied that benefit.
Jenny Marra
Lab
Will the member take an intervention?
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
I am sorry; I have been asked to wind up.I welcome the wide support to date for both the justice and health elements of the bill. We are happy to discuss and...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
I call Christine Grahame, who will speak on behalf of the Justice Committee. Ms Grahame, you have nine minutes.15:25
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
As the Presiding Officer says, I speak in this debate on behalf of the Justice Committee, which was the lead committee considering the bill. However, I want ...
Christine Grahame
SNP
I hope that you are not going to challenge me—it is your report.
Jenny Marra
Lab
I am not going to challenge you, convener. The evidence that we heard from the victims of crime compellingly showed that people do not want to tell their sto...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
I remind members to speak through the chair.
Christine Grahame
SNP
The report states:“witnesses asked for continuity in the support provided across the system.”That is the important part. However, I think that we all agreed ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
I call Duncan McNeil to speak on behalf of the Health and Sport Committee.15:34
Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Lab
I, too, express my thanks and appreciation for all those who allowed us to do our job in support of the Justice Committee in considering the bill, with a par...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
Mr McNeil, you must conclude.
Duncan McNeil
Lab
Whether we call it a person-centred approach or the right thing to do, or say that it is not before time, action is necessary. We support the bill at stage 1...
Jenny Marra (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Labour is happy to support the Government’s motion and the general principles of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill.Earlier this year, at the Scottish...
Christine Grahame
SNP
I simply want Jenny Marra to confirm her position, because she signed up to the words:“On balance, the Committee does not believe that a compelling case has ...
Jenny Marra
Lab
Committee reports are always agreed by the committee, but Scottish Labour thinks that there is a compelling case for case companions.Just as the Government i...
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Ind
Given the member’s strength of feeling on case companions, did she think about whether it would have been appropriate to have a minority entry put in the Jus...
Jenny Marra
Lab
As I said in response to the convener, committee reports are always agreed by the committee, and I think that we made our point in committee that we think th...
Bruce Crawford (Stirling) (SNP)
SNP
Will the member give way?
Jenny Marra
Lab
No.As I said, one area of concern that we have is about the bill’s monitoring and reporting procedures. Our concerns were raised during the committee’s evide...
Christine Grahame
SNP
Will the member give way?
Jenny Marra
Lab
No.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
The member is not giving way. Interruption. Can we have order, please?