Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 19 Nov 2003

19 Nov 2003 · S2 · Plenary

Item of business

Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Goldie, Annabel Con West of Scotland Watch on SPTV

Nonetheless, it is immensely enjoyable. Presiding Officer, I am trying to accommodate your desire to keep the chamber occupied for the duration of the debate.

I come now to territory that is a little more congenial to the minister. For witnesses who come forward and are vulnerable, the bill offers more structured and extensive support than has formerly been available. I echo the comments of Nicola Sturgeon and welcome that as a positive step. It is only part of a very big picture, but I am prepared to commend the bill on its merits. It is a worthwhile contribution to improving the court environment for vulnerable witnesses.

Although I speak as a Conservative front-bench spokesman on this issue, I am also convener of the Justice 2 Committee, which was responsible for stage 1 scrutiny of the bill and the ultimate publication of the stage 1 report. I take this opportunity publicly to thank our clerks for their invaluable support and guidance to the committee. They have shown remarkable capacity for unstinting work in the face of formidable time-scale challenges and displayed exemplary diplomacy in dealing with a convener of whimsical and carnaptious disposition. I am sure that the minister will not disagree with one word of that. I thank the members of the committee who are present for their constructive approach and the witnesses who made time to give evidence.

As I have indicated, the general principles of the bill have my party's support. Although my colleagues will wish to address particular areas, I propose merely to comment on the broad aspects of the bill, as indicated in the committee's stage 1 report, that require the Executive's careful consideration and which I hope will merit specific comment by ministers at the winding-up stage.

My first comment is a general housekeeping one—I am speaking as a lawyer who has practised in the Scottish courts—on the structure of the bill and the drafting, which is referred to in paragraph 90 on page 16 of the Justice 2 Committee's report. When the bill is enacted, it will be held in the hands of prosecution and defence lawyers or pored over by the presiding judge as arguments are addressed by solicitors. It is not user-friendly as a working tool in that environment. My plea is that the Executive has its drafting team examine the cross-references and consider whether greater clarity and transparency might be achieved by simply repeating ad longum the parts of the bill that are incorporated by cross-reference. It is extremely difficult to read the bill in a continuous manner as it is not cohesive.

I turn to what is critical to the success of the bill, which has already been alluded to: the early identification of vulnerable witnesses. Although the bill will extend to civil proceedings, I think that everyone anticipates that the provisions will be invoked most frequently in relation to criminal proceedings. The first point of likely identification of a vulnerable witness in that context will certainly be at the stage of the police's initial involvement when an incident is first reported or investigated. That will then have an on-going implication for the transmission of information to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

The committee report acknowledges that other agencies will have a role to play, but the two vital components of the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in the criminal justice system will be the key to whether the bill will work without the introduction of further delays to the system. I draw to the minister's attention the paragraphs on page 6 of the report that cover that aspect.

The other component that is essential if the bill is to work is resource. The minister will be aware that the Finance Committee flagged up that aspect on page 38 of its report and the Justice 2 Committee has drawn particular attention to it in paragraphs 98 to 103 of its report. There are two important aspects to the resource and implementation issue. One is that the resource must be in place to deal with the immediate consequences of the bill when it is enacted. The other is that, given the phased implementation of the bill, there must be total clarity on the part of the Executive in identifying the funds that are needed to meet its requirements.

In the time available, I have dealt only with broad issues, which are of singular importance if the bill is to work. I welcome the Executive's comments on those aspects. Three specific matters are of concern to me. One, which Nicola Sturgeon raised, is the important matter of the fair trial element to which the Faculty of Advocates referred. I do not think that that is a meaningless exercise in semantics; the faculty made a genuinely important point and I would welcome its being given further thought. The application form to have someone considered a vulnerable witness should have within it the specific reasons why the applicant seeks to have that status accorded. That is important, because unless the other side knows why the application has been made and understands the reasons behind it, we build in the potential for delay and disputatious conduct in the procedural aspects of the case. Nicola Sturgeon also covered the rights of parties to a hearing, which is another important technical element.

Subject to the comments that I have made, the bill is worth while and it will be helpful in encouraging witnesses to come forward. My party supports the general principles of the bill.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 19 Nov 2003

In the same item of business