Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 (Implementation)
The next item of business is a statement by Kenny MacAskill on implementing the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement and there should therefore be no interventions.
I was delighted to host a reception at Edinburgh castle at the beginning of last week to say thanks to the many people from throughout the country who have, through their dedication and commitment, ensured that the new deal for witnesses, the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004, is now fully in place. At the reception, I also took the opportunity to express my gratitude to the Lord Advocate, to my predecessor Cathy Jamieson and to Parliament for their efforts in putting right the wrongs against vulnerable witnesses.
April 1 was an important day for the modernisation of our justice system, because it marked the completion of the implementation of the 2004 act. I want to mark that moment by reminding members why we all, irrespective of party lines, wanted the legislation to go on the statute book in the first place. I will then update colleagues on the significant achievements that have been made so far in the justice system in putting the act into effect. Finally, I will highlight what I see as the future challenges that will face all those who work with and have a duty to support witnesses.
The origins of the 2004 act lie in the widely accepted view that the justice system was failing witnesses. Sadly, there were plenty instances of children and of particularly vulnerable adults breaking down in open court in the face of lengthy and uncompromising cross-examination in full view of the accused. As a result, cases fell, justice was not being done and witnesses were being left seriously traumatised and damaged by the experience. In response to the widespread call for change, the then Scottish Executive launched a wide-ranging review of how vulnerable and intimidated witnesses were being treated in the justice system and how they could be helped to give their best evidence.
The publication in 1999 of "Towards a Just Conclusion: Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses in Scottish Criminal and Civil Cases", followed by the response to the resulting consultation in 2002, "Vital Voices: Helping Vulnerable Witnesses Give Evidence", formed the basis of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced in 2003. We supported the bill's progress through Parliament and welcomed its successful passage in the spring of 2004. It remains, for us, a key building block in our programme of continued modernisation of our justice system. We stand by the previous Administration's commitment to make the system more accessible to witnesses who might otherwise be denied a voice.
The act was phased in over three years at the same time as other significant modernising laws, including reforms of the High Court and the summary justice system. The justice system is to be commended for the huge effort that it has made to accommodate so many vital changes in such a relatively short time. The 2004 act provides a comprehensive procedural framework for a more humane approach to witnesses generally. It puts them at the heart of the justice system, strengthens it and makes it fairer, as is entirely in keeping with the Government's strategic objective of creating a safer and stronger Scotland.
By codifying and widening the provision of special measures in court, we are enabling all children and adult vulnerable witnesses to give their evidence in ways that best suit their individual needs. That means that all child witnesses under 16, adults who suffer from mental disorder and those who are in fear and distress at giving evidence and where there is a significant risk that the quality of their evidence might be diminished as a result, can access special measures that best meet their needs. The act's coverage is comprehensive: it covers witnesses in all High Court and sheriff court criminal proceedings, in children's hearings court proceedings and in all civil proceedings in the Court of Session and sheriff courts, including fatal accident inquiries. In each of those settings, special measures such as screens, supporters, live television links from within and outwith the courts, giving evidence-in-chief by prior statement and giving evidence to a commissioner, are available to vulnerable witnesses whom the court agrees need them.
Of course, no act is worth the paper that it is written on unless it is put into practical effect. I know that charges have been levelled at the Scottish Government and others who are responsible for implementing the act that there is insufficient commitment from us in making the law work, and that we are apathetic about giving it effect. The evidence that I have seen of the tremendous effort by all the agencies involved–public, private and voluntary—shows that there is no lack of commitment to improving the welfare of vulnerable witnesses by making the act work.
As an example of that effort, I want to highlight the work that has been undertaken by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Scottish Court Service. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has a significant and pivotal role to play in implementation of the legislation. It deals with the vast majority of witnesses in criminal trials and therefore uses the act's provisions the most. The main aim of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is to avoid the need for children and vulnerable adult witnesses to give evidence in criminal proceedings where possible. I agree with that aim.
The phased implementation of the act has enabled policies to be reviewed and updated in relation to child and vulnerable adult witnesses, so that witnesses who are cited to give evidence now do so only when it is essential and appropriate. When they are required to give evidence, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service seeks to ensure that entitled witnesses are able to benefit from the act's provisions. To that end, extensive guidance has been developed for prosecution staff to assist practical implementation. The guidance is accompanied by a comprehensive training programme.
I am pleased to report to members that prosecutors have placed applications before the courts for the full range of special measures that are provided by the act. That has led to new approaches—such as taking evidence by commission and giving evidence by prior statement—being utilised successfully in court. For example, I am aware that evidence by commission was used for a young child witness in a murder trial in 2007. The evidence of the child was recorded in advance of the trial, and the recording was produced as evidence at the subsequent trial. That allowed the arrangements for and timing of taking the child's evidence to be focused on the child, as opposed to the child's being called to court as one of a number of witnesses on a particular trial day. The accused in the case was convicted. Learning from such experiences, the Crown Office continues to keep practices, policies and procedures under constant review to ensure continued improvement of the services that are provided to witnesses in the justice system.
The Scottish Court Service has also been instrumental in widening access for vulnerable witnesses to the special measures that have been made available by the act.
By the end of May 2008, 54 of the 58 dedicated court locations will have courtrooms that are capable of handling evidence by live television link. At locations without fixed cameras and screens, mobile TV equipment can be installed as required. Where, due to shortage of space, no dedicated rooms are available for providing the witness link from within the court premises, a TV link can be made to another court, or to what are called remote sites.
I am pleased to confirm that there are now six dedicated remote sites, with a seventh about to start in Kilmarnock. Sites are operational in Aberdeen, Hamilton, Inverness and Falkirk, and it is planned that Edinburgh and Glasgow will come on stream in the next few months. The sites provide specially equipped facilities that, in effect, are part of the court although they are not located in any court building. Vulnerable witnesses, especially child witnesses, can give their evidence without the stress of coming to court. They can be linked through live TV to any court in the country.
In addition to those dedicated sites, the Scottish Court Service is working with a range of agencies to establish ad hoc sites across the country, with a view to having five to six in each sheriffdom to supplement the dedicated sites. I have no doubt that many witnesses will benefit from that excellent provision.
Implementation of the act has also been assisted by the production, by the Scottish Government's victims and witnesses unit, of an extensive range of guidance for practitioners, together with information material—including innovative use of DVD and CD-ROM technology—for witnesses themselves or, where appropriate, their carers. The development of the material, which has been widely praised, has been an excellent example of collaborative working between the Scottish Government and all those who work with witnesses.
Much has also been done to promote and raise awareness of the act through roadshows and training events involving judges and sheriffs, fiscals, solicitors, social workers, police officers, medics and volunteers.
So—that is where we have got to. For me it demonstrates the tremendous progress that has been made across the justice system to fulfil our commitment to vulnerable witnesses and to implement the 2004 act. However, the commendable effort does not stop here. I now want to ensure that the new provisions, and the policies and procedures that go with them, are applied at a consistently high standard throughout the country. I have agreed to the setting up of the multi-agency witnesses issues group to ensure that that happens. The group will find meaningful ways of promoting cultural and behavioural change among practitioners to ensure that all vulnerable witnesses are treated with dignity and respect, and that they all receive the support to which they are entitled.
We also need to be smarter at tracking the impact of the act. I am keen to ensure that all those who have a responsibility for implementing the legislation continually improve the evidence base to show that the measures are reaching the people whom they are meant to help. I know that recent reports about how the justice system has handled cases involving vulnerable people have raised questions about the ability to identify and support their needs, but I am confident that effective application of the 2004 act can contribute significantly to improving the quality of service that is delivered to vulnerable people if and when they need to give evidence in court.
However, the act will work properly only if all those who work with children and vulnerable people are, for the purposes of ensuring that they get the right support when giving evidence, skilled in identifying their diverse needs. I assure members that the Scottish Government, in close collaboration with our partners, will continue to work hard to ensure that the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 plays its full part in ensuring that witnesses remain at the very heart of the justice system.
We are on a journey: we accept that there are real challenges ahead and that we can expect some turbulence, but if we continue with our spirit to resolve difficulties and maintain our vision for vulnerable witnesses, we will be successful.
The minister will now take questions on the issues raised by his statement. I intend to allow about 30 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business.
I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Justice for providing an advance copy of his statement and for his acknowledgement of the work that Cathy Jamieson and the previous Administration did in putting the treatment of victims and witnesses in our courts high on the agenda, which resulted in the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that proper treatment of witnesses is fundamental to our justice system, given that it affects the outcome of criminal justice trials? Does he agree that our procurators fiscal face significant additional work in supporting that? Can he outline how witnesses will be informed of what special measures will be available to them? Is he satisfied that the Crown is already making adequate use of special measures?
Finally, will the cabinet secretary consider broadening out the work on vulnerable witnesses to include safety and protection of intimidated vulnerable witnesses as a precaution, given today's unconfirmed press reports highlighting the issue of protected witnesses?
Ms McNeill is right that protection of witnesses is fundamental. For too long, witnesses were viewed as, at best, an encumbrance and, at times, a nuisance. They were viewed as being there simply to do what they were required to do. They were not always treated with the dignity and respect to which they are entitled, irrespective of whether their evidence was given as that of the victim, of a person doing their citizenly duty or of someone who has been cited. That attitudinal change had to be dealt with, so the member is quite correct to praise my predecessor for driving the matter forward.
Clearly, the issue is not simply about changing the system, given that we are dealing not simply with systemic failures but with individual failures. Therefore, we need to change the culture and attitudes not only within the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service but among the general public. As can be seen in some recent tragic cases, it seems to be accepted that the issue is often not so much systemic failure as a failure of attitudes. We need to change those: that is what we are doing.
The position of the Crown is a matter for the Lord Advocate, although I am in regular discussions with her. Much of the information and data that we require to be satisfied about that issue are within the domain of the Crown Office rather than the Government, but Pauline McNeill can rest assured that we are seeking undertakings that appropriate monitoring will be carried out. We will look at other such matters and the member can rest assured that I will raise the valid point that she has made.
On broadening out the use of special measures to ensure the safety and protection of witnesses, some of those issues are matters for the police. Obviously, it is accepted that people who do their citizenly duty are entitled to the full protection of the law. I am more than happy to undertake to discuss the matter both with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and with the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, which deals with many aspects of the witness protection programme. Those who do what is necessary to uphold the law and who do their duty as good citizens by giving evidence must be treated with respect and dignity.
Ms McNeill makes the valid point that if there are any threats to or intimidation of witnesses, we have to ensure that the appropriate procedures exist to support them, whether by beefing up what is dealt with by the police or broadening the interpretation of the 2004 act. We are more than happy to consider that. We need to keep such matters under continuous review because witnesses are vital. Irrespective of who they are or how they get there, we have to ensure that we protect them.
I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement, which reveals a satisfactory situation. I pay tribute to the cabinet secretary, his predecessors, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and others who have been instrumental in seeing the legislation on to the statute book by a unanimous vote of Parliament.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of my view that all legislation should be reviewed some time after its enactment. I listened to what he had to say about on-going studies of the legislation, but will he in due course carry out a review by consulting judges, sheriffs, prosecutors, the defence bar and victims organisations to ensure that the act continues to operate as we all wish it to?
Mr Aitken makes a valid point—it is important that we review the legislation. I undertook to speak to the Lord Advocate to ensure that the Crown Office was doing its bit. We, as a Government, are monitoring things and we intend to provide our findings to individual members and to the Justice Committee so that matters can be scrutinised and reviewed.
Mr Aitken is correct that it is about not simply what the Crown Office, the Scottish Court Service or others in the domain of the Government are doing, but about how solicitors are interpreting the act and how the judiciary is working with it. If my memory serves me well, I believe that we are due to arrange a meeting with all those involved—the buzzword is "stakeholders"—to discuss what is happening. I am more than happy to share that discussion with the convener and members of the Justice Committee. We all have to learn. It is not just about the Crown Office and the Government; we are all involved. We have to review the legislation regularly to ensure that we are getting it right. Part of that is about changing attitudes and part of it is about reflecting changes that occur in society. Such changes occur regularly and we therefore have to monitor how the act is working out to ensure that it delivers what we voted for four years ago.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I also thank all those who were involved in putting the 2004 act on the statute book. It has made a big improvement to the treatment of witnesses in Scotland, although the Liberal Democrats acknowledge that more can and should be done to support and protect vulnerable witnesses throughout the legal process. In fact, there is a story in the newspapers today about a key trial witness—Jeanette Cooper—who was murdered while she was in a safe house in a block of flats in Glasgow. That shows just how vulnerable vulnerable witnesses are.
At the pre-trial stage, witnesses are asked whether they would like special measures, which Pauline McNeill mentioned. Some witnesses do not understand what special measures are and cannot imagine what giving evidence will be like, so when they are first asked whether they need special measures, they say no. Later, when the time comes to give evidence or the witness sees the court room on their familiarisation visit, they change their mind and say that they would like special measures. Some witnesses are under the impression that they can ask for special measures at any time and they will be granted, but if they have previously turned down the offer of special measures—which were the nub of the act—it might be difficult for them to get them later.
Is a question coming, Mr Pringle?
Yes. I am sorry, Presiding Officer.
Some judges are reluctant to approve any late applications for special measures. How will the minister ensure that that difficult issue is addressed?
Mr Pringle raises a variety of points. I cannot comment on the particulars of the case to which he and Pauline McNeill have referred, but it is clear that the act aims to deal with situations that involve people who are perceived to be vulnerable, whether through age, mental incapacity or whatever.
Those who seek to interfere with the due process of law by intimidating witnesses or anything like that must be dealt with, because they are attempting to pervert the course of justice. As I said in response to Pauline McNeill, we will not hesitate to broaden the view, if that is necessary. Mr Pringle can rest assured that this Government will take a dim view of anyone seeking to interfere at any stage with anyone doing their citizenly duty of giving evidence in a court of law.
A lot of the broader matters come down to common sense. We have to ensure that the system is implemented. I have long known of individuals' declining special measures that a procurator fiscal has offered them and then, at a later stage, seeking to access those measures. My experience has always been that the door was never closed, and that the fiscal or sheriff would go out of their way to do their best. In certain circumstances, however, procedural difficulties arise and it is very difficult for them to do something—for example, a video link cannot be created at the last moment, as a technician cannot be found at such short notice.
The system that we have was created without the appropriate regard for the rights and dignity of the vulnerable individuals that the act is concerned with. Sometimes, we must leave matters to the common sense of the procurator fiscal and the judiciary. Occasionally, of course, common sense flies out of the window, but that happens as much with politicians as it does with procurators fiscal or the judiciary. We have to learn from such instances.
The intention of the act is that the door should never be closed. My understanding, based on discussions with the Crown Office, the courts and so on, is that people understand that some vulnerable witnesses have a predilection for making late changes, and that that must be factored in.
I assure Mr Pringle that the act makes it clear that there is not a cut-off date as such and that we hope to drill home the message—perhaps at the meetings that Mr Aitken suggested we hold—that people should recognise the difficulties that vulnerable individuals face, whatever their age or capacity, and that we must go out of our way to ensure that the way in which we treat them at every stage allows them the dignity that the act seeks to enshrine.
I welcome today's statement and pay tribute to the work that was done by members of all parties in the first two sessions of this Parliament to ensure that measures such as those that we are discussing stayed on the agenda and that progress was made. Today is a good day for everyone here, and for our former colleagues.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that there is sometimes a breakdown in the courts because of the way in which vulnerable witnesses, particularly children, are asked questions—they sometimes become confused or fail to understand the questions they are asked. Will the cabinet secretary consider introducing some form of chaperone or assistant—I think that the correct term is "intermediary"—who can be on hand to interpret for the child or the vulnerable witness so that they know exactly what is being asked of them? The intermediary could also ensure that the evidence is understood correctly.
Our system is flawed in that it is so high-powered and confrontational that it can put children off and lead to their not answering properly. It would benefit from the introduction of intermediaries.
The use of an intermediary is not a statutory special measure in Scotland. The response to a recent consultation on the matter is the subject of a detailed analysis, which we will publish at a later date and discuss with members.
At present, under common law, the court has the discretion to allow a specialist to be present to aid communication between the witness and the court. In the case of an adult with learning difficulties, that might be an appropriate adult; in the case of a foreign national or someone who speaks a language other than English, the court might bring in an interpreter, based on a judgment call about whether their level of English comprehension required it.
As I said to Mr Pringle, some of these issues come down to common sense. There are times—in regard to a child or in regard to a vulnerable adult—when an intermediary is appropriate, irrespective of the seriousness of the case. There are serious cases when that would be appropriate and there are other cases in which, frankly, it would probably not be necessary: if a child who is quite mature has seen a gentleman go into a shop, steal a bottle of wine and disappear, and they are being asked only to identify that individual, they might view it as quite insulting to have someone there to hold their hand.
We must ensure that the law is in place and that we have the necessary additional facilities to deal with particular individuals and with particular difficulties, such as the nature of the accused, but in some instances we should trust the common sense of the judges, the sheriffs, the court clerks and the procurators fiscal.
I, like other members, welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's supportive comments in connection with the previous Executive and his support for taking the 2004 act forward, but the important issue is to ensure that the additional resources that are necessary to do that are in place.
The financial memorandum to the 2004 act indicated that there would be additional running costs of £3.95 million and a one-off cost of £1.2 million. Can the cabinet secretary provide members with the details of how the financial memorandum has been taken forward and the expenditure that has been committed to date and will be committed in the future?
I am not in a position to give the member an immediate answer, but I am happy to write to him with that information. A significant amount has been delivered. There are 50 or 54 sheriff courts and the applications have been processed. We must also remember that with some of these things it is not so much a matter of fixed or capital costs, because they are already paid for in the courts or other public buildings. For example, the technology is already used for other links, because we are considering how to create links to enable evidence to be given from prisons or elsewhere.
As usual, Mr Martin asks about resources. We are happy to write to him with the specifics, but the issue is about more than just resources. Regarding the tragedy involving Miss A, which was announced by Norman Dunning of ENABLE Scotland, it is not so much the law that is at fault or a matter of the money that is spent as changing attitudes. The real, fundamental change that the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 introduces is not in relation to fixed accommodation or fixed links; it is about treating people with dignity and respect. We will, nonetheless, provide information about the finances.
I offer many thanks to the cabinet secretary for his statement. The vulnerable witnesses legislation is largely concerned with accidents and family and personal problems, but many of those can stem from social conditions in which vulnerability reflects criminal activity and associated pressures. Will the cabinet secretary assess the impact of the existing legislation on changing crime patterns, with a view to increasing its effectiveness?
As Mr Harvie knows—Mike Pringle and Pauline McNeill touched on this—vulnerable witnesses are to be dealt with differently from those who seek to interfere with the duty of witnesses to give evidence. We live in a world in which there is a growing problem with serious crime. The Government has acknowledged that by setting up a serious organised crime task force. We have to recognise and deal with the danger that the tentacles and links that are part of serious organised crime pose, not simply to our society, but to individuals. I am happy to indicate that we will examine that, not just in relation to how we deal with the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004, but in how we tackle serious organised crime.
I realise that the problem also hits at a lower level. It is quite easy, in most cases, to give evidence if one lives in a nice leafy area of Edinburgh, as I do, but if a person lives in some peripheral housing scheme in the city of Edinburgh or elsewhere it can be very intimidating if those against whom they are giving evidence are close by. That is something on which we have to do more and better work. It is not so much a matter for the 2004 act, but I am happy to consider the ways in which it might interface with that.
It is certainly the Government's, the police's and procurators fiscal's task to come down hard on anybody who seeks to pervert the course of justice and to ensure that we do everything to protect witnesses from those people. That is under way. Cathy Jamieson introduced that legislation too.
We have powers to ensure that, operating through the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, we have witness protection programmes and can move people, if we wish, not simply outwith the jurisdiction of Scotland to other jurisdictions in the UK, but outwith the UK. It is simply a matter of cost and, indeed, whether they want to go that far.
The cabinet secretary can be assured of my support to ensure that the 2004 act makes a difference, particularly to the people we have probably all come across in our constituency work. We should remember, too, that some vulnerable witnesses are also the victims of crime.
The cabinet secretary said that implementation of the 2004 act has been assisted by the production of an extensive range of guidance, which he claimed has been widely praised. If victims are to remain at the heart of the justice system, why were the victim of the vicious Foy attack and her family not notified prior to the publication of the Scottish Prison Service inquiry, which was called for by the Parliament? I am told by the First Minister that it was because the Scottish Prison Service did not hold contact details for the victim or her family. Is the SPS exempt from the much-needed 2004 act? Does the cabinet secretary agree that that was a feeble excuse and a disgraceful way to treat that family? Will he ensure that something like that never happens again and that all witnesses and victims are treated with dignity and respect?
On the latter point, that is the desire of the Government and the 2004 act, but things occasionally go agley. On the Foy situation, Ms Craigie will know that I gave a statement on it and publicly apologised for the failings that affected the victim and her family. I met the victim and her parents, who were highly impressive; the victim is an incredible young woman, and I reiterated my apology to her.
Ms Craigie can rest assured that the Government is on the case when we have to address matters in which there have been failings; whether they are within our department, the SPS or elsewhere, we will seek to tackle them. No jurisdiction or system can ever be foolproof, but we must ensure that we have the laws to ensure that we get things right. We must try to ensure that everybody acts according to proper procedures and uses their common sense, and that we monitor and learn—that was raised by Mr Aitken—to ensure that the number of tragic incidents is limited. However, I can reassure Ms Craigie, as the constituency representative of the victim of Robert Foy and her parents, only that we sought to make it clear to her and them how sorry we were and that the door is open to them if they wish to come back on that or any other matter.
Like others, I welcome the cabinet secretary's statement on this important issue and I am pleased to hear of the progress that has been made. How many times has the new procedure for taking evidence been used? What percentage of cases does that represent?
We understand that, since 2005, there have been 506 applications on behalf of witnesses to give evidence by TV link. Since April 2005, there have been 149 applications to enable witnesses to give evidence via a live TV link from a remote site. That represents 30 per cent of the applications for TV links.
The cabinet secretary rightly commented on the training and expertise of those who work with young people. I apologise for following the same line as Paul Martin, but how will the Government support Victim Support Scotland's assessment toolkit, which is designed to assess the needs of potential witnesses, and its roll-out across Scotland?
Victim Support Scotland is a standalone organisation that the Government is happy to contribute to substantially. I meet VSS representatives regularly. I hosted a reception for VSS at our recent party conference and I went to meet VSS staff at their office to learn from them, face to face, about various problems. We must recognise that victims come in a variety of ages and with different problems. That is why we have provided support in a variety of ways. For example, with regard to those with a mental health problem, we were the largest financial contributor to a DVD produced by ENABLE Scotland and Lanarkshire ACE, entitled "What Happens Next?", which is designed to help people with learning disabilities and mental health problems navigate the justice system.
When we deal with youngsters, we do so in a variety of ways. Victims of a sexual offence will have different views or attitudes. All that we can give is the assurance that we seek to ensure that resources are adequate. The letter to Mr Martin will also be sent to Mr O'Donnell, to provide what assistance we can. We will keep on everybody's tail, so to speak, to ensure that they do what they can.
We in Scotland did not set out to treat witnesses in a hostile or undignified way; it was just one of those things that occurred far too often—it had just aye been. Just because something has aye been does not mean that it aye must be. We did not treat witnesses with the dignity and respect to which they were entitled and we must change that. That means changing attitudes, which involves providing resources—members are correct to raise that—and legislating, but what is ultimately required is that people put the legislation into practice.
I, too, welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's statement and the work of the previous Executive and the Parliament to put in place the 2004 act. What action is being taken to protect vulnerable witnesses in and around court buildings? Will the Crown Office collate details and report on any witness harassment?
The member raises a valid point. Vulnerable witnesses are distinct from witnesses who give evidence in the normal course of events but face harassment or an attempt to pervert the course of justice. I pronounced on the issue in opposition and I maintain a watchful eye on it.
Going to court can be scary for many individuals. A person who is adopting a child, for example, may see people whom they are not used to bumping into hanging around corridors in courts. That can be intimidatory. The Government believes that the best solution is a visible police presence, which can mean such a presence in courts as well as on the streets. The Scottish Court Service and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service deal with such matters, but a valid point is that people who go to court are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect in proceedings and that they should not be routinely harassed or feel intimidated. Some duties are for private security operators, but there should always be some police vigilance in our courts. That is not simply for the safety of witnesses, but because—sadly—assaults on the judiciary and on Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service staff have occurred. That is entirely unacceptable and we must protect them adequately.
If all remaining questions and—preferably—answers are relatively brief, we should fit everyone in.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement, which acts as a welcome update. I agree with Mr MacAskill that the Government needs to be—in his words—
"smarter at tracking the impact of the act."
I note the commitment that he gave Bill Aitken, to review the act with stakeholders. Will Mr MacAskill also commit the Government to providing such an update to the chamber, regularly, to allow members to monitor the act's implementation as it develops, so that any amendments—on witnesses who are subject to intimidation, for example, which Ms McNeill mentioned—that are thought necessary to improve further the protection of vulnerable witnesses may be introduced expeditiously?
I do not intrinsically oppose that suggestion, but it is more for the Parliamentary Bureau and business managers than for me. In principle, I am more than happy and see no difficulty with the proposal, which is a matter of sharing the available information.
The cabinet secretary is aware of my concerns about vulnerable witnesses, following a recently reported case in my constituency. I wrote to him about that and I thank him for his response, which I received just today. Does he agree that a further issue to tackle is the plea-in-mitigation aspects of cases that involve vulnerable witnesses and complainers when a plea of guilty has been made and therefore no trial has been held? In such circumstances, few controls appear to apply to comments that might be made, however adverse they are.
That is a valid point. We have had discussions on that matter with the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates. To some extent, such matters are best dealt with by the judiciary. We are on a learning curve. Miss Cunningham makes a valid point. The tendering of a plea in mitigation should not be used as an opportunity to besmirch or defame an individual. People should not go down that route if there is no basis for doing so, and people who are presiding over the matter should take measures to curtail such action.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement, which is welcome. Has an assessment been made of the impact that vulnerable child witnesses giving evidence via advance statements or videolink has had on conviction rates?
That information is coming out. One reason why there has been low usage of such means is that people have pled guilty before giving evidence. We will happily discuss the matter with the Crown Office on the member's behalf. Such information is more readily in the Crown's domain than that of the justice department, but it is clear that the purpose of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 was to get convictions by allowing victims the dignity to which they are entitled. I undertake to make investigations and get back to the member on the matter.