Item 2 is the final evidence session in our stage 1 inquiry on the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I will explore some of the bill’s provisions for vulnerable witnesses. The extension of the special measures to other categories has generally been welcomed, but we have received quite conflicting evidence on the provisions that would allow a challenge to those special measures. Victim Support Scotland argued that allowing the challenge to special measures was its “greatest concern”, while the Faculty of Advocates, among others, said that the accused’s lawyer must be able to challenge their use. Does the bill strike the right balance between the victims and the accused?
Thank you for raising that important point. You are right to articulate the concerns that have been raised with the committee, and we have taken them on board. As a result of the European Union directive, we require to go in the direction that you outlined, but we are more than happy to discuss the matter with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to ensure that we get the balance right. It is about achieving a balance. The points that have been raised cause us some concern, too, and we will liaise with the Crown on the matter.
Will you also liaise further with Victim Support Scotland?
Absolutely. I take that as read.
In what circumstances might objections to the standard special measures be lodged?
We think that they should not be lodged regularly, which is to some extent why the judiciary and the courts have to be involved. The issue is to get the right balance.
Do you envisage the mechanism being used in quite limited circumstances?
I tend to think so. The ethos of the bill is to provide protection, and I think that we should try to provide such protection. As the convener has said, we need to weigh in the scales of justice not only the rights of the victim but those of the accused. However, in the main we are here to provide protection and support for those who have to deal with these very stressful circumstances.
The representatives of victims and witnesses were at pains to stress in their evidence to us that they want to ensure that people are able to give their best evidence. They feel that the uncertainty that would arise from the possibility of an appeal would cause greater upset than is caused by the current system. Can you describe the timescale for an appeal and explain how an appeal would be processed?
I do not think that we can go into specific details, unless Graham Ackerman can help me out. Alison McInnes’s point is quite valid: that situation would create uncertainty. However, we have to balance the right of the victim with the right of the accused. Such challenges will arise. Similar matters are already being dealt with in the courts, and they are always accelerated. Indeed, that would be our general intention, so that there is some certainty and so that the case can be dealt with quickly—not simply for the sake of the accused, but for all those involved, including the Crown and the defence.
On specific timings, any party in the proceedings can lodge an objection notice no later than seven days after a vulnerable witness notice or application has been lodged. The court can allow later objections to be lodged if it considers that to be appropriate in the circumstances.
A number of questions have been raised about victims and witnesses having the ability to “participate effectively”, which is one of the principles in section 1(3). What is meant by that principle?
That is a high-level provision. I think that it relates to the EU directive. Clearly, we wish to engage with Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland, as well as, in other matters, with those who represent the accused, such as the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates. High-level discussions take place regularly between Government officials, other parts of the judicial system, the Crown and Police Scotland. I know from experience—committee members are probably aware of this—that that process filters down, with courts having user panels. From discussion with the clerk at Edinburgh, I know that the courts engage with those who have been, for example, the victims of domestic violence, so that they can work out in practical measures what the user experience—if I can put it that way—has been or should be.
Victims of crime might have raised expectations about what is on offer, or what is possible, in terms of effective participation. They might think that they have a bigger part to play, on a personal level, than is actually the case.
The whole ethos of Scots law is that we take the victim as we find him. In the legislation, the directives and protocols are laid down to deal with matters as best we can. That is why there are clear expectations for the Crown and the Scottish Court Service; that is how it should be. Equally, we must remember that victims come in all shapes and sizes and have different needs. We need to have an element of flexibility. What is intended here is that we engage at a high level, so that as the terrain changes—as needs arise, or as problems are brought to our attention—all those involved, not just the Government but those in the SCS, the Crown and the police, are able and willing to engage with that, while allowing for an individual’s needs. That is what we hope to achieve.
We have received a letter in response to a matter that we raised with Police Scotland about the level of information in bail cases that is routinely provided in sheriff courts. Police Scotland’s letter states:
Obviously, the guidance from the Lord Advocate is a matter for the Lord Advocate. The police are quite right in saying that such information should be made available to the procurator fiscal, but clearly there are limitations on what individual officers are able to do, given their skills and resources. The general principles of the bill are that each body that is involved—whether that is Police Scotland, the Crown Office or the Scottish Court Service—should make an assessment of the individual witness and, where possible, try to meet the witness’s needs and requirements.
Convener, may I move on to other matters?
Yes, unless you are poaching someone else’s question. We will find out.
Well, my clairvoyant skills are not with me this morning.
I will defer to Graham Ackerman on that, but I would have thought that, probably, yes, other than for spurious challenges. We would rely on the good sense of the judiciary on that.
In its provisions on objections to special measures, the bill states that objections can be raised about the particular circumstances of the case and about the special measure that has been granted or notified. The grounds for such objections are not stated, but the bill states that the defence—or any party to proceedings—must set out the grounds on which the objection is raised and why the special measure would be inappropriate in the circumstances. As the cabinet secretary said, it would be for the judiciary to decide whether there was merit in the objection.
Equally, I can give you an assurance that I will liaise with Sheriff Tom Welsh of the Judicial Institute for Scotland to ensure that these matters are brought to the judiciary’s attention. I cannot think of a way that we could preclude such matters—as you say, we are not clairvoyant—but we rest on the good sense of the judiciary. The same applies to how a witness is cross-examined. As you know from experience, firm questioning sometimes needs to be allowed for justice to be done. Equally, where that would constitute clear harassment, we expect that the judiciary would act to rule out the manner in which that questioning was being done.
At the risk of poaching further questions from other members—
Well, we will find out. I am not clairvoyant, either.
On the issue of oral representations that victims and their families may make to the Parole Board further down the line, can you confirm what the Parole Board said to us about such representations being made available to the prisoner and being open to challenge?
Yes, that is correct. That is not a massive departure from what happens at the moment. Written representations can be made to the Parole Board, and those written representations are included in the dossier that is sent to Parole Board members. The dossier is also made available to the prisoner, who in due course can make representations to the board.
We will now find out whether any of Graeme Pearson’s questions have been poached.
The issues have been covered very well so far.
We have tried to be flexible on that. The original idea came from Margaret Curran in the previous parliamentary session—it has also been suggested that it might have come from Margaret Smith—which is to her credit. Given that people wish to make representations, we have tried to avoid a scenario in which the victim would need to go to the prison or be subject to cross-examination by the prisoner and his agents. Unfortunately, in terms of the European convention on human rights and fairness, that is where we would have gone. We have discussed with the Parole Board the ways in which we can allow families to make those appropriate and vital representations without having to endure such things.
That is absolutely right, and we have discussed those matters with the Parole Board.
First, the Scottish Prison Service—as it makes clear in its evidence to the committee—does not feel that it has the right environment or the necessary arrangements to cope with such oral representations. That should be borne in mind no matter what arrangements are made.
Absolutely, and we recognise that there are difficulties. The VNS scheme is, in the main, very much welcomed, although there are difficulties and challenges that have been brought to me. Sometimes people have been released and that has caused a great shock, but the scheme has had to start from somewhere. There are people who are released as their cases pre-date the scheme, which causes distress, but that is not the scheme’s fault as there had to be a start date.
No.
There is a more substantive issue in which I have a particular interest. We have received powerful evidence from all the victims concerned to suggest that—as I described at a previous committee meeting—they feel like a parcel in the post. They are constantly being addressed and having to go over the various elements of the case, and they repeatedly have to give their name and background and the details of the crime. They are constantly telling people about it, and therefore constantly reliving the experience.
First, I state on record that we are introducing the legislation not simply because of the EU directive, but because we know that more needs to be done. We should recognise the considerable progress that has been made. The previous Lord Advocate, Dame Elish Angiolini, identified that issue—to her credit—even before I came into the Administration. However, we need to go further. The present Lord Advocate has, to his credit, identified that the process can be stressful and difficult not just for victims but for witnesses, which is why the bill addresses both those groups.
Victims and witnesses did not complain so much about the adversarial situation in court, although many of them found that quite harrowing. They were concerned about the handover between agencies, and the apparent perception by a new player that the victim or witness was unknown so they had to go through everything almost from day 1. They had to go through the whole process, answering questions such as, “Why are you here?”, “What are you complaining about?” and “Where do you live?”
We can never rule anything out. I accept your point, but I would not want to cut across the current role of Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland. In my experience—and doubtless even more so in Mr Pearson’s experience—the police will refer to many of those organisations at the outset.
Under section 3, on the disclosure of information about criminal proceedings, the bill requires the various agencies to supply information to designated people. When I asked the police whether they were in a position to supply that information to witnesses and victims in a timely manner, they indicated that they were not; their systems were not sufficiently subtle to offer that. I suspect that many of the other agencies involved are in a similar position.
We must ensure that we get an information technology system that enables us to have an appropriate exchange of information; some of the process will come down to doing that. Work is on-going: the bill is part of a making justice work programme that deals with a variety of matters, whether that is technology in courts or other aspects relating to police and crime. Technical difficulties exist that we must address. The bill is about principles and some practical matters. On administration, we will work with the police to ensure that their systems are appropriate, not just for dealing with victims but on all other aspects of justice that the police have to address.
I did not see anything in the financial memorandum that might cover some of those additional costs—in terms of IT and so forth—for the various agencies. Was that aspect considered?
No, because the work that the police referred to me in relation to i6 information technology and other matters is getting done and progressed anyway. The work that is being done to allow the management of police information systems will, as a consequence, improve matters for victims, but it is being done to improve the system. Quite understandably, you have commented on that before. To some extent, therefore, although the costs are dealt with in other aspects of policing, they will have the benefit of improvement for victims.
But i6 will not come soon.
We are on the case.
Graeme Pearson is on the case as well—all over the place.
We have to accept that, where somebody is the victim of a crime, they are a victim, whether they are a beacon of righteousness and truth—
I will stop you right there. A person is not a victim of crime unless the crime has been proved against them. That is my problem with the definition in the bill that talks about victims pre-trial, at police stage, right through the process. In fact, there is a point of transition in a case where someone becomes a victim. For the Crown, a person might always be a victim, but they certainly are not so for the defence.
You could be a victim and there could be no case. Somebody could be assaulted and no perpetrator could ever be traced—no assailant could be found. They would remain a victim and to some extent the same definition that we have is accepted in the criminal injuries compensation scheme. For example, with criminal injuries there does not have to be a court case. You have to be the victim of what is perceived to be a crime, whether or not that assailant is ever identified and whether or not anything can be proven or taken to court. We hope, for justice’s sake, that that would happen, but people can be victims without matters ever going to court. You are the victim of a crime if your car is scraped or damaged—
You are teaching your granny to suck eggs. That is not my point. My point is that this would also be applicable during a court process, when there is a party in the dock who is accused of a crime against another party, who is being referred to throughout the bill as “the victim”. That gives me concern about the language in the bill and I do not know why perhaps we could not have a definition in the bill about when a person is designated a victim and when they are not designated a victim.
That is for the judiciary to balance; we always have the presumption of innocence. The term “victim” is used in the bill in terms of the procedures. In terms of the leading evidence—in terms of evidence before the sheriff, before the sheriff and the jury or before the judge and the jury—doubtless the victim would be referred to by their own name unless anonymity was granted. The term is more for the systemic structure—for the existing bureaucracy—than for the language that would be used in the court. In my experience, the term “victim” is very rarely used within the precincts of the dock or indeed the witness box—you talk about the “individual”.
The Faculty of Advocates argues that the alleged victim of a crime—which is what we are talking about in a court process—should be referred to as the “complainer” rather than as the “victim” both before and during a trial. Of course, at the end of a trial, they may or may not be described as the victim of a crime, depending on the outcome. Do you see why I and perhaps others on the committee have issues about the use of language which, as a practitioner yourself, you know is terribly important in legislation?
In 20 years’ practice, I do not remember somebody being referred to in a court trial as “the complainer”. They were always referred to as “Mr X” or “Miss Y” or “the person that you see seated over there”. Yes, language can be critical in terms of the definition in the bill but in the main, people should be dealt with respectfully. Also, it is in the best interests of those who are going through the process that we try to use language that is understandable. We have to have the term “complainer”—those of us at this meeting are aware of that term—but for a victim to be told that they are not the victim but the complainer might cause some consternation.
My last point on this issue is that you have undermined your argument because you talked about using language that people understand. If people hear that somebody is being referred to as the victim in a case, they understand that that person is a victim when in fact that person may not be a victim at all. The problem for me is that the language in the bill makes an assertion in simple language that a person in a court process has been the victim of a crime when they may not have been a victim. That is the issue.
It has gone through investigation. We have the presumption of innocence. These things are not brought in on a whim or a fancy. There is a case to argue, which is why it is before the court. There is a case that has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, which is a high standard. A case is not brought because a police officer thinks that somebody might have done it or on the basis that the Crown wants to satisfy the police. It happens because there is a case to be faced. We have other ways of providing protection for the accused to ensure that there is a fair trial. The word “victim” is used sparingly in the court when evidence is being given. However, it is important that we maintain flexibility in its definition in statute and so on.
Perhaps there should be a definition in the bill then.
We think that the word changes in use. Equally, I understand that the definition that we use is the same as that used in the criminal injuries compensation legislation.
That is an entirely different matter.
I share your concerns, convener. The Law Society also expressed concerns, although it looked at it from a slightly different perspective. Its argument for having a definition was so that individuals knew whether the bill—or the act, when the bill is enacted—would apply to them. It has suggested some wording to define “victim”. I think that you are saying that you are not minded to accept its argument in favour of defining victim or indeed its suggested drafting.
I am happy to reflect on it. However, we have a definition of victim that is used generically throughout the legal system in Scotland, which is based on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and is understandable to those using it. That suggestion has come from the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates. Others in the system have no issues with the definition.
In the ordinary use of the language and the word “victim”, are there any victims who will not be caught by the provisions in the bill?
Only those who have been victims of crime and have not reported it to the police or who suffer in silence. We would implore them to report the crime. We are here to take the victim as we find them, not to be judgmental. There are other processes in the judicial system to address that. It is not for us, in introducing legislation, to decide whether there are any contributory factors and so on. That is why we have a court system.
On that point, cabinet secretary, you said that the term “victim” was used throughout legislation in the criminal justice system. In fact, the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 uses the word “complainer”. You gave the example of criminal injuries. That is once a case has been brought, and guilt and a victim have been established. Would it not be more consistent to use the language in the 1995 act?
No, I do not believe so. A victim is a victim if a crime happens. It might be that no one saw your car being damaged. It might be that no one could trace the assailant who assaulted you. Just because a matter does not get to court does not mean that you are not a victim; you are a victim. Once we start using the term “complainer”, everything is dependent on being in that judicial system.
But section 1(1) of the bill says:
If I phoned the police today to report that my car has been scratched or my wing mirror has been kicked off, a crime report will be recorded. I am a victim of crime. It does not mean that I will appear in court. It is possible that no one can identify who the accused is.
Can I say something, convener?
I have John Finnie waiting on this point. I am afraid that he has got there before you.
He stole my question.
We will see.
Cabinet secretary, we had a lot of representations from the children’s commissioner and Children 1st. Although I would not put words in their mouths, I think that they would be greatly concerned if children were being referred to as alleged witnesses. Would that be your understanding?
It is “alleged victims”.
Alleged victims—I beg your pardon.
That is a fair point, and I agree with that.
What I will say relates to some points that were made earlier. If someone reports a crime to the police and the police fill in the necessary form—or database, now—they are described as a complainer. The police officer taking the report would indicate that the complainer was John Smith, for instance. They would not be indicated as being the victim.
I am grateful for that point. Sandra White has been patient. We have aired the matter, and there is clearly a dispute in the room as to whether we are content with the terms “victim” and “complainer”.
It is. I have found something different. I am awfully glad that I am not a lawyer, a policeman or an ex-police officer. I see myself as a layperson—a punter. We have spent about 10 minutes discussing the semantics of whether people are victims or complainers, and that says an awful lot about the people—
The ex-lawyers are sitting guffawing. It is about more than semantics, I am afraid.
That says a lot about why we need a bill that clarifies things for people—we can decide at the end whether they are victims or complainers. It is for people to get justice and to understand the justice system.
We are taking that point on board. You have correctly identified the change that is being made under the bill, which will not force child witnesses to appear in court, nor will it make significant changes to the current presumption, which we believe is sensible, that young witnesses should give evidence remotely. The bill provides that, in cases where a child witness has expressed a desire to give evidence in court—that is for them—that preference is heeded, unless there is a good reason why it would be inappropriate.
Do all children under 12 really have the capacity to make up their minds? Are they advised or helped in some way to make up their mind whether they want to appear in court?
In my experience, we have moved on a long way from when I appeared in courts, when the method of dealing with a child witness was for the sheriff to sit in the sheriff clerk’s chair and take his wig and gown off. Tom Welsh and his predecessors at the Judicial Studies Committee moved on from that. Efforts have been made by the Scottish Court Service to ensure that any child understands the where, the what and the how, and that arrangements are in place to provide for them. The courts are now much better briefed about the understanding of a child and on how to decide whether the child should be able to give evidence.
I might come back later—but on a different issue.
I want to pursue this further because, as far as Children 1st is concerned, the issue is capacity and whether children understand what they are submitting themselves to when they say that they might want to be in court to give evidence instead of giving it remotely. Are you aware of any other jurisdictions where children under 12 give evidence directly in court?
I am not aware of any such comparisons, but my colleagues might be able to help me in that respect. I can say that the current presumption is that, in trials that concern certain offences, children under 12 will give evidence away from the court building, but what we are talking about is a minor amendment that seeks to place greater weight on the child’s views. For example, they might wish to give evidence in court to avoid being separated from a parent. Of course, in addition to the presumption that I mentioned, the judiciary has a role in making such assessments and being cognisant of the child.
Although I am sure that the provision is well intentioned, I seek some assurance that research, perhaps on the longer-term impact of appearing in court, was carried out before you chose this option. If there is no such research, will you be able to carry some out in the run-up to stage 2 to further inform the debate?
We are happy to provide the information that we have, but it is fair to say that this has not been done without its being discussed by my officials, the children’s commissioner and the children’s charities. The provision is based on the best evidence about appropriate methods that has been built up over many years from all those involved with children.
I do not have the Official Report with me, but my recollection is that Children 1st was surprised by this measure and felt that it had not been consulted on it. I would certainly be grateful if you could provide the information that you have.
We will do so.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I have a number of slightly unrelated questions.
We have not ruled that out. The overwhelming majority of those in the uniformed services who suffer assault tend to be police officers, but I am aware that dreadful incidents also happen to others.
Before I move on to my next question, I should refer members to my entry in the register of interests as a member of the Faculty of Advocates.
The issue has been raised both by the faculty and fairly recently by Rape Crisis Scotland. We are open to receiving further detail from them on the proposal; I certainly think that we need a bit more clarity about the role of legal representation in the process and whether it would, as you have suggested, be limited to those application hearings.
I suspect so, but I do not want to speak for the Faculty of Advocates on that point.
Quite.
Has there been any academic review of the use of special measures to date and whether the best evidence in that respect has been given?
No extensive research has been carried out on special measures in Scotland. A report published in 2008 covered the initial implementation phases—in other words, the year before and the two years after the introduction of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004—and found that the act had raised awareness of vulnerability and had led to increased use of special measures to help vulnerable witnesses. However, the main point that it highlighted was a lack of data about the number of special measures being used and their effectiveness. Indeed, I think that that is probably still a bit of an issue.
Do you have any further comments, cabinet secretary, on the reasoning behind closed courts being used as a special measure and ruling out the accused’s right to be treated as vulnerable?
The court already has powers and rights to address the challenges that face those who are accused. The bill seeks to improve matters for victims and witnesses. If people have thoughts about changing the scales of justice or changing what we should be doing, I would be happy to consider them, but we already have methods for alleviating some issues for the accused. I think that the matter would best be considered separately.
I have two questions, one about the families of victims and one about witnesses.
Procedures are already available in courts to deal with any doubt or dubiety. I put on record my gratitude to the Lord President for taking a bold and appropriate step to clarify matters in that regard. Our position is that the legislative basis is already in place to ensure that we get the correct balance. I will be meeting the Lord President tomorrow, and we will doubtless be discussing the matter. The system already exists: we have procedures through which such matters can be tested if that is desired.
The feeling among the experts is that the current procedures are not sufficient to improve the understanding of scientific evidence in our courts. The English Law Commission has considered the matter recently, and the Scottish Law Commission might wish to consider it, too.
If you want to specify who would accredit and on what basis, and who would staff the organisations that would be necessary to provide the accreditation, I would be more than happy to consider the proposal.
This is more of a pre-emptive suggestion. If the accreditation is there, we would hope that things would not reach the point that you are talking about at which procedures have to kick in, which takes up more of the court’s time.
That is why sheriffs and judges often have to sit with lay advisers in the course of their inquiries. Judicial knowledge tends to be legal, not scientific. I am open to suggestions about how someone in the judicial system with a lifetime’s training in law would be qualified to decide whether or not somebody was an expert in a scientific field in which the judge had no knowledge. Some organisation would have to deal with that.
You have hit the nail on the head: there is not sufficient understanding of scientific evidence among the judiciary. One of the proposals that I put to the First Minister was to have scientific advisers in the court. If you would be open to consider such a measure, that would be very welcome.
I am happy to consider the cost.
Would that fall within the purposes of the bill? It is described as
I will be seeing the Lord President in the course of our normal catch-up sessions and meetings. I am grateful for the steps that he has taken. I am happy to engage with the Lord President, and I am also due to engage with Professor Sue Black when she is back, and I have been in correspondence with her.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. To clarify, convener, I am not raising the matter spuriously—I have taken some legal advice and I believe that such measures may be competent under the bill. We can investigate it on that basis.
I was just taking my own legal advice—it may or may not be within the purposes of the bill.
I turn to an issue concerning the families of victims. We heard evidence last week from families of people who died in road collisions and fatal accidents. A campaign group is seeking to have a right to get information from the police and the Crown Office enshrined in the law, which an amendment to the bill could cover.
I put on record my tribute to Margaret Dekker and her colleagues in Scotland’s Campaign against Irresponsible Drivers, who have done a remarkable job in raising the issue and in pressing the Administration in which I serve and previous Administrations. I am grateful for that.
I will press you on the matter. We discovered in evidence last week that the Crown Office does not in fact release the papers, and not enough information goes to families to tell them that they can request the information. The right that could be enshrined in law would give them that protection and allow them to make such a request. Would you consider that for those families?
I am happy to engage with the Crown Office to ensure that the appropriate level of information is given whenever possible. There are things that the Crown Office correctly disseminates. Sometimes the information and the evidence include distressing photographs of the deceased. We would not wish to send somebody such pictures in a large pile of documents in accordance with their statutory right, and I do not think that that is envisaged.
I believe that the victim surcharge will apply to all offenders who are given a fine. Most of the victims groups from which we have heard evidence have welcomed the measure, which is a positive move. Who will be responsible for collecting the surcharge? How will the cabinet secretary ensure that the existing backlog of uncollected fines is not just added to?
I know that, sometimes in Scotland, people prefer the glass half empty to half full, but the court fine collection rate is 86 per cent—the committee has had assurances from Cliff Binning on that. We expect that the matter will be dealt with by the sheriff court service and that the service will do an outstanding job in collecting the surcharge, as it seeks to do in collecting fines. There are people who are reluctant to pay, but with good support and willingness and with further information now becoming available—I pay tribute to the Department for Work and Pensions on that—I think that matters will get better.
How much is owed in uncollected fines?
I do not have that information before me. However, as I said, we are at an 86 per cent collection rate.
That was not quite what I asked about.
Automatic early release is not covered in the bill, but never mind.
That is my point. Do you see the bill as a missed opportunity to abolish automatic early release?
No. The bill is a welcome opportunity to improve matters for victims and witnesses. I am aware of the long-standing issues relating to automatic unconditional early release, which was of course brought in by a Conservative Administration long before we even came to power.
To clarify what you just said, is that a commitment to bring forward abolition of automatic early release in other criminal justice bills that are coming before Parliament in this session?
We have a manifesto commitment. We are also building on Henry McLeish’s advice that automatic early release could not be addressed until prison numbers were reduced. However, we are considering matters, and we always look to ensure that Scotland is as safe as possible. We have inherited the Conservative Administration’s policy of automatic early release from many years ago, but we are happy to discuss the issue. I have just signed off a letter to your party leader about it and I am happy to engage in such questions.
I have no doubt that the party leader will share the information with Mr Lamont.
Obviously, that is fundamentally a police matter. However, one of the significant benefits of the single service is that we can move towards having a national rape investigation unit, which is long overdue. We have a specialist crime division that has divisional areas, so the expertise is there. There is a consciousness that it is not just desirable but, quite often, necessary for a victim to be able to specify the gender of an interviewer.
What you say sounds reasonable. Section 5 relates to interviews, and Rape Crisis Scotland, for example, wants it to be extended to forensic examinations. Would you be prepared to do that?
I am happy to look at that. Some such matters are more than one step removed. I cannot direct the police in such investigations—only the Lord Advocate can do so—and, simply going on my discussions with the police, I believe that police surgeons, who are one step removed from the police, would be involved in such procedures. However, we have seen a culture change and the recognition that questions such as who examines and investigates a person and how they do so matter.
So it might be possible to amend section 5 to extend its provisions beyond interviews to examinations.
I am happy to look at the suggestion, but the question is whether we need to amend the bill or whether we simply need to ensure that, with proper guidance, such practices happen. No one whom I am aware of who deals with such matters in the police, the Procurator Fiscal Service or the health service will want to compound the agony of the individuals involved. We want to ensure that there is flexibility to deal with any dreadful incident that might arise and that, no matter the shift pattern, the locality, the geographical element or whatever, people immediately know that they should ask the victim, “What can we do for you?” If the victim says that they want a doctor of a specific gender, we should seek to provide that doctor.
Does Sandra White have a supplementary?
I am going to ask about compensation orders, convener. I tried to get in earlier when Rod Campbell mentioned the issue, but the questioning moved on.
Absolutely. If someone did not want a compensation order because it might rub salt in the wound, it should not be granted. We will ensure that appropriate guidance is given and action taken.
Thank you.
I hate saying, “As there are no more questions, we will move on quickly,” because as soon as I do so someone puts their hand up.