Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the second meeting this session of the Justice 2 Committee. The first item on the agenda is the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, on which we are required to consider our approach. I direct members to the helpful paper that the clerks have prepared, which I trust members have had a chance to look at. It outlines the background, summarises the key points, suggests an approach that we might care to adopt, comments on timing and finishes with a recommendation.
Perhaps we should invite written evidence from the Association of Directors of Social Work, particularly from the child and family division and the adults division.
Is everyone relaxed about that?
I ask the clerk to add Mr Barrie's suggestion, for which I thank him. I welcome Mr Pringle to the meeting.
I have received a letter from HOPE—or Helping Offenders Prisoners Families—an organisation that is based in Glasgow. I do not know the organisation, but I am glad that I got to the meeting in time to suggest that the convener might like to consider it. Other members might also have received the letter from HOPE.
Over the summer recess, there will be an open call for written evidence. I suggest that it would be appropriate for HOPE, if it is desirous to be involved, to respond to the invitation that we will make. Does Mr Pringle agree that it is appropriate for us to deal with the letter in that manner?
Yes.
I suggest that we move on to consider the list in the annex to the paper. We have added Mr Barrie's suggestion. Do other members have suggestions to make?
We should speak to the police. We can cover the implications for local authorities only by talking to the ADSW and the police. I do not have a body in mind but, given what we heard in the briefing, perhaps we should also invite a voluntary sector mental welfare group to give evidence.
On Jackie Baillie's first point, I note that the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland is listed in the annex to the paper.
My apologies—I did not get that far down.
I think that the list is fairly comprehensive.
Yes. It is fine.
I am sure that the committee is not averse to Jackie Baillie's second suggestion on the voluntary sector. Perhaps as a first trawl, it might be appropriate to let the voluntary sector look at and respond to the call over the recess. If voluntary sector organisations feel strongly about the issue, the opportunity exists for them to make contact with the committee. Is that agreeable?
I take it that the list, with Mr Barrie's suggestion added to it, is a suitable basis on which to proceed. If that is the case, I will instruct the clerks to write to the organisations on the list seeking written evidence. Is that agreed?
For the benefit of the committee, I ask the clerk to explain what form the call for evidence over the summer recess will take. Will it be made on the website, for example?
Yes. Our usual practice is to put a general call on the website along with details of how to respond. We also discuss with the Parliament's media office how best to get the information into the appropriate trade press and so on.
Thank you.
Further to Jackie Baillie's suggestion of asking a voluntary sector mental welfare group to give evidence, we could contact the Scottish Association for Mental Health.
That is a useful suggestion. I welcome the inclusion of that organisation in the list.
We should agree in principle to do that. It would be sensible for us to work with organisations such as Victim Support Scotland. I remember that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee used Children 1st to consult children on a piece of legislation. It might be useful to take that approach again.
I note that Children 1st is included in the list of organisations to which we will write seeking written evidence. We might well take advantage of its knowledge of vulnerable witnesses.
On that point, another useful inroad to hearing the experience of victims is the victim information and advice service, which is operated by the Crown Office. It is listed in the annex to the paper.
Okay. That is helpful. Given that we have embarked on what is an extensive process, do other members have suggestions about how we should seek the views of vulnerable witnesses?
When the clerks write to the ADSW, they could perhaps draw the issue to its attention. I can think of situations in which vulnerable witnesses have had a rough deal giving evidence in court. We could ask the ADSW to highlight that. People who have been through an unfortunate experience might wish to relate that in a semi-confidential way—although that might be impossible—so that we can hear their experiences of when the process did not work.
There is no reason why the subject could not be broached with the ADSW. There might be confidentiality issues, but if the association feels free to disclose what it can, that would be helpful for our purposes.
I think that it is important to speak to the Crown Office officials. Subject to guidance from the clerks, I think that it would be appropriate to ask the Crown Office whom it would like to send to the committee, because we do not know who is expert in which area. The Lord Advocate may not choose to give evidence, but there are people in his organisation who could assist us.
It might be helpful to hear from a children's organisation.
The clerk has pointed out that, after we have clarified from whom we are taking oral evidence in our first meeting after the recess—that might be the trio that I suggested—we can make decisions about other oral evidence to take. Do members agree that we will play it by ear and consider what further oral evidence is appropriate after our first meeting after the recess?
I think that that covers everything that we have to cover in relation to the bill. Unless there are other thoughts or suggestions, we shall move on.