 Good morning and welcome to the justice committee's first meeting of 2019. We have apologies from Liam McArthur. Agenda item 1 is a decision on whether to take items 3 and 4 in private and also the draft stage 1 reports and vulnerable witnesses, criminal evidence Bahn Infilt Beil, the managementff of offender Scotland Beil and whether the draft stage 1 reports and the敵 Currentlyöttal witnesses criminal evidence Cameron M guild Scotland So incorporating good group婦 and the management of offender Scotland Bill should be taken in private at future meetings. We are all CF Beatburg and Hope Felly, mae'r ffordd iawn o'r perthynau cyllidegau cymdeithasol yma yn y cyd-deithasol yng Nghymru. Felly, rwy'n rwy'n ffordd iawn o'r pêr 1, oedd eiddem yn fawr o'r Pêr 2, oedd eiddem o'r pêr. Mae gael hwnnw, yn fawr, Cymru, o'r Cymru, a'r Cymru. Yn sicrhau cymdeithasol, Lleslie Bagger, cymdeithasol cymdeithasol, Llyw Leigh Millor, maen nhw i'r cyfaciliadau cael ei gael nhw i'r llyffynth i Gwyrd Benz? Rydw i'i rydw i'r cysylltu ein bod yn jwghryd rydw i'u reilio am fel y Cyfanyddiaeth yn y cyfaint ond rydw i'u rydw i'ch cyfanyddiaeth, ac mae'n rydw i'n cymryd yn hyn yn ôl. Rydw i'i rydw i'r cyfanyddiaeth i gyffinion y cyfanyddiaeth. A byrdu i'r cysylltu ein bod yn gweithio fawr oedlion cyfanyddiaeth.barhau y byddionol dai'r cyfnidiadau sydd eisiau dechrau'r Llywodraeth didnes 말을au yn ei d hygiol o adzir newydd darhooedderion. Rydw i ddim ffewir y diwrnodol ashurant i gychwyn cyfnidiadwyr gyda pronegin wedi oseminwyr procureig iawn i gael eu handfulau i ioi wrth digwydd eisteddol i fynt digwydd diwrnodol hawt cynllunion ei weld y beryddwyr, ac mae gan diversiw Amongрастant Sorry Abern Governor Wrth gael unrhyw gwyllus i defnyddio'r xumau yn wandolol yn cyntafol, mae'n wedi fwyll援ffyr i gael eu caelwyr iaith, yn gwneud i gael gwneud, ac yn ddisiw牙 mlynedd yn gweld, ac mae'n roi fwyll援ffyr dros cymdeithasol. Felly, gan gael cyfnodol, mae'n edrych gyda'r ysgolwyr cwmwneud i'r cwmwyllwyr iaith i gael ambitious yr antrhywgau amser, ac mae'n cymdeithasol iaith ar gyfer mwyllwyr iaith i gael cwmwyllwyr iaith, i девos i ei ddeithasol, ond mae'r ad stickerllau mae'r ddechrau ond mae'r adrach iechydigau. Aeth y gallwch gweithio'r ddechrau yn cael ei dweud i'w cyd-raed yn gyffredinol i gyfunio'r cysylltiad. Fawr, dwi'n gael eich gweithio'r dderweddau y wneud ar gyfer rhan o'i ddechrau yn gweithio'r cyfnodol. O'r wyf yn gweithio, yn cyfrifio'r ddweud o'u'r ddechrau, oedd unemployedor yn ei ddweud i byd of stakeholders over the past couple of months. I am very pleased that the overwhelming response has been positive and supportive. That said, I accept that some issues have been raised during those evident sessions. That would be helpful for me to address very briefly just a few of those issues this morning. I am aware that many stakeholders have asked how and when we intend to commence the provisions in the bill, in particular when we intend to use the power contained in section 3. We have always been clear that our initial focus would be on child witnesses in the most serious cases. I trust that you received a letter that I sent to the committee yesterday, providing, of course, that the bill is approved by the Scottish Parliament. This sets out our proposed approach to commencement and attacks on that letter as a draft implementation plan. As members will note, and I set out in the letter, it is important that the provisions in the bill are commenced in a phased, manageable and effective way. I know that some stakeholders are supportive of that approach. It is of the utmost importance that we do not overwhelm the system and that we get it right for children and vulnerable witnesses. Not to do so would undermine the policy aims of the bill and, more importantly, risk making matters worse for the very people that we are seeking to protect. Members will note that the Scottish Government intends to extend the new rule to adult, deemed vulnerable witnesses in the future. That would include complainers and sexual offences cases, and it is likely that initially that would be commenced in the High Court first. It is important that each stage of the roll-out is evaluated and monitored to ensure that the justice system as a whole is ready to move to the next phase of implementation before we do so. I cannot stress strongly enough that I want to make sure that the justice system is fully prepared and that the necessary IT and infrastructure is in place before moving from one phase to another. As you are aware, we have already invested as a Government almost £1 million to create new vulnerable witnesses suite in central Glasgow. I have also just made another £1.1 million available to the court service and continuing to work with it in relation to upgrading other venues and IT equipment so that the court infrastructure is ready for the increase in the number of witnesses having their evidence pre-recorded. Finally, I intend that some concerns have been raised in relation to potential miscarriages of justice. I hope that I can allay those concerns, because evidence currently is and will continue to be tested. Witnesses continue to be cross-examined in evidence by commissioner hearings under the new statutory rule. It would also be under the oversight of a High Court judge or indeed a sheriff. The bill does not in any way undermine these very fundamental principles, nor does it amend the current definition of vulnerability or amend the current special measures. What the bill does is create a statutory framework to enable the greater use of pre-recorded evidence so that our most vulnerable citizens do not have to undergo the additional stress of having to await the court trial before giving evidence. Thank you, convener. Of course, I was happy to take questions. Start our questions with Daniel Johnson. Thank you very much. Connects in my wishes for a happy new year to the cabinet secretary. I would just like to begin by asking the broad question as its heart, the bill has the view that recording evidence prior to a court case is beneficial to a vulnerable witness. I was just wondering if the cabinet secretary could outline what his views are of what those benefits are and the potential drawbacks and protections that are required to make sure that we still see justice being carried out in our courts. I thank the member for his good wishes on his question. I would say that it is important to recognise, as I know the member does, that we are not introducing a new special measure. The pre-recorded evidence by commission can be applied for and does currently take place. Although we are obviously in some respects creating a presumption when it comes to child witnesses, so already safeguards exist in place for those cases. It is important to recognise that the evidence being taken by commission would be at the oversight of a judge or, indeed, a sheriff in jury trial. It is important to recognise that safeguards already exist. In terms of the benefits, in the previous evidence sessions that you have taken from organisations such as Barnardo's Children's First, the evidence from those in the legal profession from the faculty of advocates right through to the Crown and others has been really overwhelming in terms of the benefits to the child but also to the justice system generally. It actually helps to speed up potentially the criminal justice system. The really big benefit for children and, I hope, when we extend to adult and demon vulnerable witnesses, is mitigating as best we possibly can the potential to re-traumatise through the court process and the court proceeding. That is something that we know can have a long-lasting impact. I think that some of the evidence that I have heard not to the committee sessions but to my conversations with the likes of, for example, Rape Crisis Scotland would tell me that rape complainers will often say that the court process, not just re-traumatise them but, in some respects, was even more traumatic than the actual incident and event itself. Being able to mitigate some of that re-traumatising, assist the court process in terms of efficiency. I think that there are a lot of benefits, but the important point is that we have to have safeguards there as well and the current safeguards that exist are fairly good, are strong but, of course, if there is a need for improvement, then, of course, we should be open-minded to that. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. Again, I agree with much of what he said. Clearly, that will mean quite a big change for people in the courts, both in terms of the infrastructure required, the recording of requiring technology, but also changes in practice. I thank the cabinet secretary for the letter that he provided, but could he perhaps expand a little bit in terms of the assessments that will be made, because there is very much a staged and phased approach that is being taken to ensure that lessons are learned at each stage and, indeed, more time taken if that is required. Could the cabinet secretary elaborate on how those assessments will be made, both in terms of practice and infrastructure? I think that the latter point is hugely important. In some respects, we are able to look at what is happening in England and Wales, where there is a phased roll-out. Again, the reason that England and Wales are phasing out the roll-out is to monitor and to evaluate. I think that that is really important for us to be able to do. We have to have a degree of flexibility. That is why, in my implementation plan that I forwarded to the committee, there were dates attached to some of what we were looking to do, but clearly not dates attached to everything. The reason for that was because I want to get things right, as opposed to just giving you an arbitrary date. We have to evaluate, we have to monitor. In terms of how that would be done, perhaps some of my officials would be able to add some more detail to that, or I can follow up with committee afterwards. However, we know that, even just looking at high court cases involving child complainers and child witnesses, that alone will require quite an upgrading of facilities infrastructure, but also a cultural shift, potentially, too. What I would say about the infrastructure IT infrastructure is really important. I was very interested to read and reflect upon the evidence that the committee took around, let's take joint investigative interviews, for example, and a number of those giving evidence to the committee saying that they were just not of the quality that they should be. That alone, if we look to joint investigative interviews, tells us that there needs to be a significant investment in the infrastructure, and we are doing that. I have seen some of that in our Glasgow city centre location that we will be using for child interviews by commission. We are investing in that, but clearly the monitoring of that is going to be huge and important before we can move on to the next phase. I hope that my officials will not add anything else around how exactly we will do something about that. Obviously, since the practice note came in, there has also been a period of monitoring and evaluation to see how the practice note is bedding in, and we would continue to do so once the legislation is in place. It would be working with the Crown Office and the court service, and it could be things through data collection, seeking feedback on the quality of commissions, the volumes of commissions, even just how long a commission has taken. Those are all important factors before we decide whether we are going to roll out further and when we roll out. A key question is why the bill stops where it does. I accept the point about the need for caution, so that the phased approach, looking at child witnesses in solemn cases and in particular types of cases, but then making provision for extension to other types of cases and other types of witnesses, all makes sense. I am wondering why the bill does not make provision for making further extensions and in particular to summary cases. After all, I do not think that a child knows to be traumatised just because it is a solemn case rather than a summary case. In particular, thinking about domestic abuse cases, which may well be being heard under summary proceeding, I think that you can understand the benefits of those measures that might have to child witnesses in those sorts of cases. I was just wondering why the bill did not include the provision to make those further extensions, albeit with the sorts of caveats and tests already set up by the cabinet secretary. It is a really good question. I hope that I can give the member some assurances on our thinking about that. I will ask my officials to come in in the back of what I say if they have anything else to add. The phased approach is one that I have recognised through the evidence sessions that you have taken has been welcomed by a wide range of stakeholders, particularly those in the criminal justice field. Stakeholders from the Faculty of Advocates to the Law Society to Lady Dorian, for example, are all very supportive of that phased approach because they understand the infrastructure and resource implication. However, I understand Daniel Johnson's question about having something on the face of the bill around summary because that might be easier to then extend in the same way that we are suggesting for adult vulnerable witnesses and so on and so forth. I would say to him that there are a couple of things. One is that there is nothing currently stopping domestic abuse cases, be they summary or indeed solemn, to be an application for evidence by commission. Under the current provisions that exist, there could be an application that would be for a sheriff or a judge to look at that application and to grant it or not. Currently, that exists in domestic abuse cases. The other thing that I would say is that the difference between the number of cases that are presided over in the High Court or solemn cases versus somebody's cases is that he understands the volume and the difference in terms of volumes and the implication that that would have. Therefore, going through the phased approach that we currently have with the list of offences that we currently have is important. The third point to make is that, when we extend to adult deemed vulnerable witnesses, that would include, and I will look to my officials to have confirmation, but that would include offences, sexual complaints and domestic abuse cases as well. When it comes to the list of offences that exist, I am not close-minded. I have listened to the evidence and I have seen domestic abuse. The issue of domestic abuse has come up from a number of stakeholders. We should reflect on that as a Government. At the same time, there is a provision within the bill to amend the list of offences that currently exist or not. There are two separate issues. One is that there is some correlation between the two, but the issue of including domestic abuse is an offence. We should be open-minded as a Government to that suggestion, but understanding the implications that that would have. Then there is the issue of extending to somebody, and I am not quite convinced that we have to have something on the face of the bill if we were to go down that route. We would then have to think about phasing the implementation if we did, so the current phasing implementation is children in high court. It is all in cases, high court and sheriff and jury, then looking at adult deemed vulnerable witnesses, and again we would probably look at the high court first and then look at sheriff and jury. Then would you look at somebody cases and would it be somebody cases involving children first and then somebody cases involving adults? We would have to think about how we phased all of that. The latter point that I make is that if we were to include it for somebody, the very last point that I would make is that if we were to include it for somebody cases and create that presumption, it might be unnecessary. It was Tim from the Crown of the Court Service that gave the example of a 16-year-old witness in a bike theft, and the summary courts would be required for them to give pre-recorded evidence. I am not convinced that that would be a best use of time resource and so on and so forth. For all those reasons, I think that on the domestic abuse front we should be open-minded as a Government on the issue around something on the face of the bill in relation to extending to somebody cases. I am not quite persuaded. Following Daniel Johnson's line of questioning, there is a risk that, particularly given that that can be extended by regulation, that the category of vulnerable witness gets extended such that it almost becomes the default position. Separately on that, do you think that there is anything in the assertion that the committee has heard that deeming a witness as vulnerable enhances or could enhance their credibility or the weight of evidence that they give? Just on the two points, when it comes to the extension of potential vulnerability, that would be a decision for all of us to make as a Parliament. It would have to be done by affirmative order and therefore if that was something that we agreed to do. Because you are right, there has to be some degree of flexibility. There is no doubt that who is deemed to be a vulnerable witness now, it may be the case that when the 20th year of this Parliament, 20 years ago in this Parliament, first sat down that perhaps not everybody captured under the current vulnerability would have been captured 20 years ago. So there has to be some element of flexibility around some of that, but it would be up to the Parliament to make that decision around extending that or not. On the second point, if I understood it correctly, there were a few stakeholders who were giving evidence to the committee that suggested that there could be more weight put on the evidence around pre-recorded evidence and would that shift the balance of fairness in a trial or not? I do not see any evidence of that. People did make that suggestion, but I did not see any empirical evidence or empirical data to back that up. In fact, in some of the data that we have, we would suggest that that is not the case, that the jurors do not give more weight to pre-recorded evidence versus evidence that is heard in a courtroom. On the safeguards, let's go back to my point that I made to Daniel Johnson that pre-recorded evidence, of course, on commission, can happen. Currently, there are safeguards. Currently, there is the fundamental principles of testing that evidence by the defence cross-examination. All of that continues and, of course, the fairness of a trial is still overseen by a judge or, indeed, by a sheriff. I think that those are important safeguards. On that exact same topic, if I may, do you have anything to say in response to the concerns that have been raised that the definition of a vulnerable witness does not necessarily predicate on any inherent vulnerability, any inherent characteristic of the witness, but rather the charge that is being made, the allegation that is being made such that the vulnerability is a function of the charge, not the actual vulnerability of the witness? Yes, but I think that it would be a difficult argument to completely separate the two. If you are a complainer or potentially a victim of attempted murder or a serious offence that is on the list, it would be difficult to argue that you are not a vulnerable person. Without that crime having been committed, you might not be vulnerable, but the fact that the crime has been potentially allegedly committed, then you are vulnerable. I think that it is difficult to completely separate the two. What I would say is that what else has been raised, I have noticed in committee sessions and evidence sessions, has been that where there are people who have particular vulnerabilities, communications issues, learning difficulties and so on and so forth. What more can be done to support them? That is slightly outside of the scope of this bill, but clearly there is a lot of work being done by Government to look at this issue both in terms of children, but also indeed in terms of adult support and making sure that we have appropriate adult support. Available to and I notice also in committee sessions has been talked about intermediaries and so on and so forth, so I think that there is an issue around how we support those who have to use leave care space, inherent vulnerabilities, as well as those who are obviously vulnerable because of the crime that has been committed allegedly against them. If I could press a little bit more on that topic Cabinet Secretary, clearly the requirements for an adult and the requirements for children are going to raise a whole lot of different issues. While the category of vulnerability might not be the issue, it is the procedures, it is just how much of the previously approved measures in place and how things will pan out when you are taking evidence for children can also be transmitted to apply equally to vulnerable adults. A lot of different issues are raised, so is it appropriate therefore to take it as something that is decided under regulation, albeit affirmative? Should there be a case for fully looking at this and the introduction of perhaps more primary legislation to look at this absolutely fully, because obviously access to justice is key to ensuring that this whole pre-recording and protecting and getting the best evidence is going to work and work well? I completely understand the thread of the questioning and I think that it is a very eminently sensible question to be asking to kind of reassurances that I hope to give to you, convener and the committee, why there are. It is precisely the reason why I think the phased implementation is so important to be able to monitor, evaluate, learn lessons, so what is transferable in relation to how we do things with children, to vulnerable adults, where there is commonalities, then we should be able to do that. In terms of the obvious differences that you referred to, convener, what I would say is that we should still be able to test that as a Parliament, even if it is by regulation making order. If we bring in future primary legislation, the committee can convene you are only too aware of the pressures that we have on this Parliament in terms of our parliamentary timetable. With everything that is going on in a wider context, even if we are looking years and years down the line, we do not know what the parliamentary timetable could look like. Are we then delaying something further for not much gain in the sense that we would still have parliamentary scrutiny around any affirmative order that would take place? I would take happily suggestions from around the committee, but we will be testing this rigorously. Also, when it comes to adult, deemed vulnerable witnesses, we will clearly be working with a range of stakeholders from the third sector, right the way through, to those involved as justice stakeholders to make sure that we have the best practice absolutely in place. The last thing that I would say is that, just at that point, I have made to the previous two members that are under current provisions, of course. Evidence can be given by commission in certain cases, so where we can learn from that, we should do so as well. I think that the point that you make about scrutiny is absolutely vital. There are pressures in parliamentary time, but those pressures cannot be allowed to compromise potential access to justice issues, as the cabinet secretary will be very well aware. That is why I welcome the fact that perhaps you do not totally rule out looking and learning the lessons and suggesting that there may be a different way forward, rather than just looking at regulation and affirmative procedure to deal with adults who are deemed vulnerable. You mentioned, in relation to Daniel Johnson's line of questioning, the number of assessments, information and data that you are collecting. Would you be prepared to share those with the committee, cabinet secretary? I do not see why. We should not, if you do not mind, reflect on it with my officials in case there are any particular sensitivities that I am not aware of, but I do not see why we should not be as open and transparent around this process, as we can possibly do. That is very helpful, thank you. On that specific point, cabinet secretary, we had further information centres by Police Scotland about a forum that they have completed. It is specifically in relation to the potential of someone to be a witness at a future High Court. It covers areas such as the victim's background, details of vulnerabilities identified. It was referred to as the victim's strategy and it is an agreement between the Crown Office and Police Scotland. It is just what regard there was to the arrangement, which I understand has been in place since 2014, in shaping the legislation, because it seemed to me that this is something that the victim task force should look at. It is covering the areas of communication with witnesses. For instance, to my mind on reading this, and we only got this yesterday, there would need to be a measure of training in the part of an officer completing this in its additional part to the Police report that is submitted to the Crown. There is a suggested format here. Any information that you could make about the existing arrangements and how they are shaping and would influence the legislation would be very helpful. I would encourage you to do that. I will happily do that in terms of following up with a little bit more detail information, but I go back to the point that evidence by commission can and does already take place. There are protocols that exist, as the member rightly suggests, and you will know, of course, from his experience, between the police, the courts and so on. Already good protocols exist. Clearly, if we are going to ramp up the numbers of those that we hope to do, who are giving evidence by commission and pre-recorded evidence, then clearly we have to ensure that the infrastructure is in place and the courts are in a good point that the member is looking to. Clearly, it might not just be courts that have to make sure that they have the appropriate infrastructure and training in place, but also, for example, police as well. It is a point that is well made. In terms of the victim's task force, again, we are at very early stages having had one very productive meeting of that task force, but, clearly, we have an open mind to what can be discussed at that. I do not know if any of my officials want to come in in relation to particularly police, but if not, then what I can do is make sure that we follow up in writing. I would like to ask about child accused who are not included in the bill. As we know, many of them are vulnerable and have many issues, too. I wonder if you could just expand on why they are not included. Your comments on the miscarriages of justice organisations who are advocating that more should be done to support vulnerable accused on the face of the bill and what you think that might be. A few things I would say on the child accused. Again, I was just looking over as you were speaking the evidence given by Lady Dorian on this, and I found it to be very strong and very persuasive that somebody who is an esteemed figure within the justice system has a clear experience. It was interesting that the very obvious reasons for why you might not want to introduce this measure for a child accused are something that has been thoroughly thought about, because Mona Mackay is absolutely correct. There, of course, will be often vulnerabilities in relation to the child that is accused. I have spoken to young people who are in secure units in our country, and it is difficult not to think of those young people themselves as often being victims for the adverse childhood experiences that they have suffered, particularly our youngest children who are in the criminal justice system. I accept her point, but there are practical difficulties around an accused. Of course, the accused does not have to give evidence, and they can choose not to give evidence. Therefore, any presumption around pre-reported evidence would find the face of that potential. That could ultimately undermine the defence. The accused has access to legal representation, which is different to a witness status. There could also be potential issues around practical issues and logistical issues, such as where there is a jury involved. The case might have to be stopped or delayed while arrangements for commission are being set up. Most cases that are accused would give evidence after hearing the evidence against him or her. Therefore, would you have to stop the trial to then take evidence by commission? For a whole host of practical reasons, and for reasons of fairness in terms of the trial and the rights of the accused, I am not persuaded that there are necessarily reasons to extend it. I notice that that is shared by a number of those within the legal profession. In terms of miscages of justice, I will go back to the point that I referred to Liam Kerr. I think that we heard some compelling evidence on the perceptions. I think that I would use that word purposefully on the perceptions of miscarriage, but it did not come with much in the way that I could see in the way of empirical data or really substantive data. There was Ewn McIlveride from the miscarriages of Justice Organization Scotland, and also from the Faculty of Advocates around potential for miscarriages of justice, but both talked in the general as opposed to the specific. If there was something specifically within the legislation—remember, we are not creating a new special measure here—this non-standard special measure currently exists, if there was something specific that the Faculty of Advocates or others wanted to come forward with us or to anybody here in the stage 2 of the bill around tightening up some of the language use perhaps, then again I would be open minded to that, because I think that we want to make sure that whatever we are doing here, as the convener has said, does not undermine the fairness of the trial process. Just to put a wee point, when we visited the High Court, it was mentioned that already the provision exists for child accused not to be in the court during the hearing, but it did not always happen. Is there anything that could be firmed up about that to make sure that, perhaps, in the face of the bill, the list was included that the accused should not be in the court while the trial was proceeding? I am not sure that it is for this bill necessarily, but there could be something that we could take back to the crowd when we could speak to the Scottish Courts Tribunal Service. There is a variety of practice notes at the moment that exists. There is an evidence and procedure review that is taking place as well, but I do not know if this is one add-in in particular. I think that that is something that we would want to discuss further with the Court Service and Crown Office. I would like to look at a focus rather on taking evidence by commission, and, obviously, Lady Dorian's practice note has increased the use of taking evidence by commissioner. Cabinet Secretary, in your opening statement, you spoke about the necessary infrastructure and IT being in place. Are there, then, any practical difficulties in terms of how taking evidence by commissioner is operating in practice at the moment? I think that some of your evidence was very compelling around the foreign sample that I took joint investigative interviews that the quality was just not good enough. Actually, this is something that the Solicitor General herself has said to me that we need to improve and upgrade the IT system. There are some infrastructure issues, so that is why we are looking to invest what we are investing in the IT infrastructure. I had the pleasure of visiting the Glasgow City Centre location, the suite that will be used for pre-recorded evidence for special measures, which the Scottish Government is backed by just shy of £1 million. That is state-of-the-art in terms of its facilities, but the technology is the latest technology, so hopefully that gets around some of that. I think that we should not be complacent around any of this, and that is why the member may be aware that there are 33 recommendations around joint investigative interviews and on how to improve them. They have been taken forward by Police Scotland, Social Work Scotland, Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service, Crown Office, Procurator Fiscal Service and so on and so forth. There is a lot of work being done, which is a good point. We need to make sure that we are confident that we have good infrastructure in place, because if we don't, ultimately we could be impeding justice as opposed to helping justice to run its course in an efficient manner. In terms of the timing of taking evidence by commissioner, Lord Justice Clark appeared in front of the committee previously and told us that when children in particular are asked to give evidence at a time that is remote from the event, not only has our memory diminished but they are more likely to be confused by general questioning about the incident and in cross-examination might come across often wrongly as being shifty or unreliable. Indeed, they not only find it difficult to deal with questions at that stage but are more inclined to agree with the questioner when they cannot remember something. I was quite struck by that evidence at the time. With that in mind, is there an opportunity perhaps in the legislation to expedite the time between reporting and taking evidence? I was also taken by that evidence, and I thought that it was very strong indeed. Any of us that have interacted with children, worked with children, of course, and Jenny Morris will have experience of this, we could recognise exactly what Lady Dorian was saying. I am not sure that it is necessarily for the face of this bill. I think that the practice note helps absolutely with some of that. Of course, when it comes to this legislation, passing taking evidence by commissioner, for example, we are suggesting that we do not have to wait for indictment for that to happen, so it could be in some cases. I do accept that it would be rare for there to be evidence by commission pre-indictment as well. If I am also correct, we would remove the barrier around seven days for consideration. Seven days has to be for a reason that I am not too sure why exists, but seven days before the application can be considered, that is removed also. Therefore, I think that we are able to speed up some of that as well. Of course, we have announced specific funding for sexual offences, and to speed up sexual offences in particular, £1.1 million, £300,000 and £800,000 to the court, service and crown, respectively. Therefore, yes, speeding up cases is hugely important, but I think that a matter is much wider than that piece of legislation. I did previously ask Lady Dorian about whether or not the bill should be more specific in terms of what it should cover. Cabinet Secretary, do you have a view on that point? No, I think again that the practice note is probably the best place for the detail of that to be in there. It is important for the legislation to be high level. If we were too prescriptive in the legislation—again, it goes back to some of the points that I have made already—legislation can be fairly rigid, it can be a bit more difficult to amend. Having the detail in the practice note, which is quite lengthy, goes through quite a few pages, and it covers everything from whether wigs should be worn or shouldn't be worn right the way through to oaths and affirmations, etc. The timings, the need for breaks, I think that that is the right place for the detail of that, and the legislation should just take the high level. If not, if we were too prescriptive, if we were to try to evolve our practice in the future, it would be difficult to do that if most of that detail was in primary legislation. You mentioned intermediaries earlier, and I wonder whether you could say whether you think that that should be in the bill. Most of the evidence that we have heard has been favourable towards the use of intermediaries, so can I have your views on that piece? I was really compelled by the evidence around intermediaries. I do not think that it is for this bill. I should say that the bill is quite narrow in scope and purposefully designed so that we can hopefully make the progress that we want to make around child witnesses and then adult deemed vulnerable witnesses. Intermediary is a much bigger and much wider issue. I think that there is a strong argument around better use and more use of intermediaries in the criminal justice system. I thought that the quote from Lady Dorian was quite compelling at that point. She said that she is in favour of intermediaries in general, but whether that is the stage to try to introduce them into the bill, I am not sure. I would agree with her, because I think that it is a much bigger and much wider issue that could have implications for other parts of the criminal justice system. The use of intermediaries is more of an issue, so she would understand for the crown and the courts, but it is probably not in the legislation that is by my view. Just connecting the point that Jenny Gilruth made around what the ground rules hearing should cover and also the intermediary point—except what the cabinet is being made—is that it says that the ground rules scrutiny may consider what support is required, and yet we are hearing from some third sector organisations that they are finding out a very short period of time before hearings proceed that vulnerable individual might be giving evidence. I was just wondering whether that should be a presumption that support should be provided or unfound for vulnerable witnesses, rather than just that it may be considered, which stops short if it is not an intermediary, but at least makes some step towards the advantages of having that additional support for vulnerable people who are giving evidence. I can see where Diana Johnson is coming from. The important thing to say at the moment is that there is obviously no legislative bar that exists if a person requires assistance or communication needs or other needs. There are provisions that exist at the moment to allow that to happen. I also note that the senators of the College of Justice consider that the bill's provision will enable a commissioner to consider permitting such support if it is deemed necessary to a particular witness. The bill addresses that in a direct way. On making that support available as a presumption, it goes back to my point to Rona Mackay that we would have to look at the issue much more broadly. We would have to have things. For example, would you have a registered intermediary scheme that we could have this pool of intermediaries that existed? If we were to have that presumption, we just don't have that pool that exists at the moment. As a training, we would have to go through the resource involved in some of that. I am not sure that I am convinced by having a presumption of an intermediary scheme where what we have to do and what we should do—which I think is outside the scope of this bill—is to see how we can improve access to intermediaries. Are they being used in the best way possible? I agree with Lady Dorian's point that, in general, we should be looking at that issue, but I am not convinced that it is necessary for the bill. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. A couple of times earlier, in response to previous questions, you mentioned joint investigative interviews and their uses prior statements. Able would comment on the level of use and what you see as the main difficulties with them. I do not have figures on the level of use of them, but I found the evidence taken at the committee to be quite compelling in terms of some of the difficulties that, in some cases, really delayed trials, just the quality of the joint investigative interview that was not at a good enough standard, and that actually delayed trials and delayed that from taking place. In terms of some of the other evidence that came forward, I noticed and I was pleased to hear that the stakeholders were looking at the issue in a serious manner. The evidence and procedure review, the fact that there are 33 recommendations to better strengthen joint investigative interviews shows that there are improvements that can and should be made. Those recommendations will be taken forward by the appropriate partners. Social work is obviously included in that. It is important to do that. From our Government's point of view, we have also committed more than £300,000 to a joint project that is led by Police Scotland and Social Work Scotland. That will create a revised model for joint investigative interviews, and it will also develop a training programme that recognises the depth of knowledge and skills required for that particular interview process. It will design a national standard of quality for GIIs, which is important. There is a separate working group that is taking forward the justice-related recommendations, including the roll-out of new IT and so on. I would say that there is a lot going on in terms of the joint investigative interviews that will work in parallel or in alignment with the bill moving forward. Cabinet Secretary, you touched on the training angle there as well. I know that this is something that you might not be able to answer just now, but do you think that if the task force were to proceed to recommend something along those lines that something you would be supportive of, that would be a more national approach to joint investigative interviews, so one specialist unit, rather than being in local authority areas? The national standards point is really important. The joint project that I talked about will design the national standard for quality-assuring GIIs. It is usually important that the point that voting makes is one that such a general, for example, has made to me before. The differences in quality in different regions or different local authority areas around the country can sometimes be quite stark. We do not want that to be the case that justice is delayed, or indeed impeded in one part of the country, but it is running efficiently in another part because of the quality of GII, particularly in the technology that we live in. We should be up to that challenge, so I hope that everybody should remember that the work that we are doing and our partners are doing on this is that we are moving forward at a pace. Before Christmas, the committee had a visit to Norway, and we had the opportunity to visit the Barnau who is there. It is fair to say that we are all very impressed by it. Tell me what your view is on the possibility of Scotland adopting this model and what the difficulties or benefits and or benefits could be in us doing that. I would be quite interested at some point to be able to sit down with various members of the justice committee to hear from them the experience of the visit to Norway. I think that it was in the beginning and middle of December that the visit took place, so I did not really have the chance at the end of the year to catch up with the justice committee. Members, I would be quite keen to hear your own direct experience. I have not travelled to either a Nordic country or others to see the Barnau's model for myself. I have obviously had a variety of meeting with stakeholders and officials, but I think that there is a very different experience you get seeing that model up close, so hopefully there will be an opportunity to be able to have a direct conversation with some members of the justice committee about their thoughts on some of that. Our own Government approach should be said that we are extremely interested in the Barnau's concept, and it is one that we have mentioned in the First Minister, as mentioned in her programme for government. It is also a slightly separate issue, although it is interrelated to the one that we are obviously clearly discussing. There are a couple of things to say. One is that the Barnau's concept is applied differently in different countries. The model that you saw in Norway, the Barnau's concept of the Norway justice led, whereas in other countries it will be slightly more health led and can apply differently in different countries. It is important from our perspective that we retain that flexibility. There are also differences with Norway. Norway is just a system more inquisitorial, and we are certainly more adversarial in terms of justice systems, so we have to think about those important differences. The actual bill itself, the reforms that are important reforms in the short term, absolutely things like giving pre-recorded evidence in advance of a trial, is possible that if there was to be a child house, a Barnau house piloted here in Scotland, the ways of how we do that pre-recording, joint investigative interviews, evidence by commissioner, they could all be incorporated into a potential future child house or Barnau house concept. There aren't plans, I should say, to have just one forensic interview of a witness because, as I say, our legal system is slightly different. The defence has the opportunity to directly test that evidence. However, it is a concept that we are interested in. It is one that there is work being done by the Scottish Government, particularly on the justice field. I did write to the committee before recess announcing the commissioning of health improvement Scotland in partnership with the Care Inspectorate to develop Scotland-specific standards for Barnau houses based on the promise quality standards. That work will begin early this year. It will take around about 12 months because it will include extensive consultation. Once that is published, the standards will form a framework for health, justice and local government to understand what is required in terms of our collective response to child victims and hopefully provide a road map to developing our approach to Barnau house in Scotland. Of course, I will keep this committee in Parliament updated in that progress. I wonder just on the point of the forensic interview model, which I think we are all very impressed with on the results, where we are really quite outstanding. Lady Dorain, when she gave evidence, did say that she thought that this would be possible and she covered this in her level 1 vision report. Has the cabinet secretary had a chance to look at this? No, I haven't looked at the level 1 report but I would be more than happy to speak to Lady Dorain on the others that are involved in the criminal justice system. Those that I have experienced of it as legal professionals to take their view, of course we should do that. My understanding was that the one forensic interview would be difficult in the justice system that we have because of the ability to test evidence, to cross-examine and so on and so forth. Of course, we should be open-minded if those in the justice system are saying that there are better ways of doing things and we should be open-minded to that. I think that that would be very welcome because, as I said, we are also impressed with the forensic interview model. Daniel Wysh? Just following directly on from both Ronan Mackay and Margaret Mitchell, I was just asking. The interesting point about the Norway model is twofold for our experience. First of all, the Norway model has adversarial elements. For example, in the Norway region system, the defence council has the right to have a follow-up interview so that cross-examination can take place. It just does not very often get exercised. Critically, the other element is that it is police-led, so it is highly trained police officers conducting the interviews. In essence, what that model looks strikingly like is an enhanced GII, albeit within a very specialised facility and other services being available at the same time. If you combine that with Lady Dorian's insights in her report, one wonders whether it does not provide some model in terms of a long-term aim in terms of enhancing GIIs because, as we know, that can be admitted as evidence in chief. There is the outline of a long-term model. I was just wondering if the cabinet secretary might reflect that that may be something to be examined and developed by the Scottish Government. I will reflect on that. My bringing in health partners and local government partners and justice partners together to explore and bring forward our road map on the road to developing Barnaws concept fully in Scotland. I do not think that I would quite make a decision yet on whether it should be justice-led, health-led or so on. I want to make sure that it is as holistic as possible. As I said, there are other Barnaws concepts and models other than the Nordic model, not the Norwegian model in particular, so we should look at the broad spectrum that exists. Interestingly, what he says about the Norwegian model in terms of the presumption against cross-examination that only happens in exceptional cases is that our system is very different from that. How would the likes of the Faculty of Advocates, Law Society and others, what would their thinking be? If we went down that route, how could we reassure them in terms of the fairness of the trial process? We know that Scotland has a unique legal system, unique justice system, and we know how fiercely that is guarded. I certainly will reflect on what he says. I will also, as the convener suggests, look at the level 1 report that we have discussed with Lady Dorian in a future conversation and her thoughts on this, as well as others in the justice system. We are in a good place. The reforms in this piece of legislation could be incorporated potentially into any Barnaws concept, but we also have all the partners who will be doing some important work in 2019 over the next 12 months to bring forward some of those issues and to help us further down the road of having a Barnaws concept here in Scotland. I cannot commend the cabinet secretary enough to see Barnaws for himself, because there is the opportunity for the legal representatives to listen to their evidence and for points to be put in a very efficient and effective and sensitive way where everyone seems to be very happy with it. For the cabinet secretary and his officials to see that for himself, it really would be very worthwhile. I want to focus on communication with and support for victims and witnesses in the supplementary evidence that you have sent in. It is very helpful. It obviously reiterates the £17.9 million committed to support victims of crime, including to third sector organisations. I wanted to focus specifically on the victims' task force, which I think met for the first time on 12 December. Just to get an idea of how you see the work of that task force having synergy and dovetailing with the bill given that, timing-wise, the bill is where it is and the task force is at the early stages of its consideration. What are your thoughts around how emerging themes from the task force could impact on the bill going through Parliament? I guess also where you see other areas in addition to the task force being used to improve the communication with and support for vulnerable witnesses more generally. Yes, that's a good question. At the first meeting of the victims' task force, which I reiterate was extremely productive, we were cognisant of the fact that there is a variety of pieces of legislation going through the Parliament that could potentially impact on victims. That is one of them. I know that you have also taken evidence and management of the offenders bill, for example, and what impact that might have on victims as well and their perception of the justice system and their experiences within the justice system. There is some of what we are doing that is non-legislative as well. For example, our commitment in the programme for government to bring forward a plan on restorative justice by spring 2019 as well. There are a whole lot of legislative and non-legislative measures that the victims' task force are very cognisant of. Whether we create a separate subgroup on that or whether we have officials who will input into the task force with the update on legislation and non-legislative measures going through the Parliament that impacts on victims, we have yet to decide them, but we will get to that position shortly. There is also a lot of research going on into how we can improve the court experience in particular and how we can improve, I would say, wider the criminal justice system for particular offences and particular vulnerabilities, sexual offences and rape being probably the top of that list. We know that in the High Court, last time I spoke to the Lord President, I think that the figure that he used was around about 70 per cent of cases coming to the High Court are sexual offences and rape cases. I do not have the evidence for that, but it is certainly from the Lord President, so the majority of cases coming to the High Court are sexual offences and rape cases. Therefore, there is a whole range of things. One is providing, of course, the financial support to the likes of rape crisis in Scotland and victims' support in Scotland and others. However, in the important jury research that we are doing, we are looking at a whole suite of measures that follow on from the debate in this Parliament on corroboration and the removal or not of corroboration and the other safeguards that exist within the system. That is all part of that conversation. The legislation will be looked at by the victims' task force or at least will have cognisance of it and be able to feed back into it. However, there is a whole load of things that are non-legislative that this Parliament is also looking at and that this Government is also looking at. It is important for us to make sure that it has alignment with the victims' task force also. It might be helpful for you to come back to the committee if you go down. I think that you mentioned the possibility of a subgroup looking at the various pieces of legislation and whether emerging themes from the task force would potentially impact on that. It would be helpful if you were to come back if that is a route that you decide to go down. I think that timing is a bit of a challenge here because there might be important elements emerging from the task force that could colour the Government's view on various pieces of legislation going through Parliament. That would be helpful. In terms of the bill itself, the communication with and support for victims and witnesses is really critical here. In terms of the restorative justice action plan by the spring of 2019, is that going to look at both legislation and non-legislative ways forward? I guess that it would be helpful looking at all the pieces of legislation to set out a very clear, consistent way of witnesses and victims being supported because there is a lot of work going on in this area. Consistency and consistency of message is very important here, so would you see that plan as being a way of pulling some of that together? How would you see making sure that there is a consistency there across all of this work? I will make one in terms of the victims' task force. It is important to say that the vast majority of the stakeholders around that task force are stakeholders that use a committee to engage with regularly when bills are coming through the Parliament. They regularly engage with the rate prices of Scotland, the Scottish Women's Aid, so on and so forth. Even the other partners such as the Scottish Court Tribunal Service, the Crown, etc. It is fair to say that many of them are very alive to the legislative issues that are coming through this Parliament. That is why I am not sure whether we need a subgroup where it is just a case of both officials and organisations and others feeding in and making sure that we are taking cognisance of those issues as the victims' task force moves forward, because they are already very much inputting into the legislation. In fact, even on this piece of legislation, you have had some of the victims' task force stakeholders giving you evidence, but you have also had some of them giving you written evidence, no doubt, as well. In terms of the second part of our question, in terms of restore to just an action plan, yes, possibly, it could draw in. I think that it should look at legislative and non-legislative measures, absolutely. Again, if we can do things without introducing primary legislation because of the real pressures on our Parliament and our committees, and indeed the Government, of course, on when it comes to legislation, then if we can do it without introducing primary legislation, I think better. There are some good models. Northern Ireland, for perhaps historic reasons, is fairly well advanced when it comes to restore to justice. I think that there are other jurisdictions that we can look at again, respecting the uniqueness of the Scottish justice system and legal system, notwithstanding that, there are other jurisdictions that we can look at. In terms of the wider framework and what we do around victims, I think that the victims' task force is absolutely the right place to do that. There are many issues that the task force is already going to be quite engaged in and looking at. There are common themes that I think all of us around this table would hear from victims having to retell their story, be re-traumatised through the court process and so on and so forth. We would immediately try to get to work. Some of that will include legislative measures, but a lot of that, in fact, I think that I can say quite confidently that the vast majority of that can be done without any legislation. That is helpful because you say that in your submission that you are driving forward a new victim-centred approach to reduce the need for victims to have to retell their story to several different organisations. I think that that cuts through so many areas that the committee is looking at. It is a thing that we have probably all heard often. I guess that that is the point that I was making about if we keep something at the heart of this that is the overriding principle throughout whether it is the pieces of legislation, like the current one that we are looking at, or whether it is the Scottish Government policy more generally. I think that that would be something that I would feel should be at the heart of it because it is something that we hear very often. Good turn again to the task force and just the inclusion of that in the Government's submission. I say a very warmly welcome the introduction of this dedicated task word, which the cabinet secretary and Lord Advocate are sharing. I note that you are very keen to hear the voices of victims and their families. How will you advertise this? How will you make that known to people so that they can come forward with their experiences and views? Something that we discussed quite extensively at the first meeting of the task force, what is the best way to do that? Ultimately, it would be impossible, as the committee would recognise, to get the views of every single victim directly in terms of orally. We have to think about how we do some of that. The way that we left it at the last task force meeting was to leave the third sector organisations such as Scottish Women's Aid, Great Crisis Scotland and a few others that were present to take that away, because they deal with victims, of course, on a day-in, day-out basis, and for them to present to us how that should be done and what is the best way. It was a fair bit of discussion whether we should have a committee—almost evidence—type of session with victims and families of victims, but that was thought. Maybe that is a little bit too intimidating, almost in a sense. Should it be a more open workshop type of event? I am really open minded to it. I have to say that I will be guided by the likes of Victim Support Scotland. On who is there, I think that we need to make sure that there is a range of voices. Clearly, families that have taken the very brave step of speaking out about their own experiences have been incredibly difficult to do, especially when we are talking about traumatising and re-traumatising. That is a really difficult thing to do. It is hugely important that we include some of those voices, such as the family of Michelle Stewart or the family of Sean Woodburn. It is important that we include those voices, but we also want to make sure that people that have been involved in the range of different crimes—the victims of various different crimes and offences—we want to capture that as well. As an iterative process, I do not see it as just one meeting of victims and the families. It may be that we have almost a parallel structure that sits next to the Victim's Task Force. I should say that the Victim's Task Force itself has the voices of direct victims too. Lynne Byrne is perhaps the most well-known who lost her son. He was tragically murdered a number of years ago, her son Sam Byrne's house party. We have victims putting directly into the task force, but there is an understanding from all of us that we have to feed in as wide a range of voices as possible. Specifically, why we look up prior to giving evidence, why we give support during the trial, after it is finished, is absolutely crucial. I think that there are people who are more vulnerable than others who are giving evidence. Having passed those measures, it would be a real shame—a real tragedy, in fact, if people were encouraged to give evidence and at the end of the day say, I wish I hadn't because of the repercussions. I ask the cabinet secretary to look at, specifically, more closed communities, a rural village setting where it can be more difficult when you have to return to that setting. Just by the small scale of where the incident has taken place, everyone knows exactly who has given evidence and there may be power structures in other closed communities. If the Government could issue a call for evidence to allow people to come forward, and sometimes that would need to be in private to protect them further, so that they could give you a full understanding of what can be the repercussions, I think that that would be very much welcome. Can I ask more generally in terms of communication? We are looking at a wraparound service, we are looking at the holistic approach, but that is going to fall down pretty badly if we do not have a practical system of communication, so that everyone is fully up to speed with where we are with the victim and their family. Is that something that the cabinet secretary has considered? Yes, can I just make reference to both points that I think the convener made very well? The first point, I couldn't agree more, the number of victims I speak to that feel that after the court process has taken place that there is just nothing in the way of, or very little in the way of, support. Victim support has got to tell me that directly. We often talk about through care for prisoners, which is right and really important because it helps to reduce re-offending. The question is, where is the through care for victims and for others as well? There are structures that exist, but there is absolutely more that we can do for sure, and I wouldn't argue with that in the slightest. I think that there is a lot that the canon should be done on that in the victims task force, but we will look at that. I think that the second point that the convener made around closed communities or the differences between a rural setting and an urban setting were discussed quite extensively. I could give experience, as you would expect perhaps, from the ethnic minority community, particularly the subcontinent Asian community, where I have come across unfortunately a variety of examples of very brave women who have spoken about domestic abuse and then just felt that they are returned to that community, they would have to move away because they were just too vulnerable. I think that that is a really good point and one that the victim task force is looking at. Just in terms of the communication point, as I understood the convener appropriately and correctly, we will certainly look at the task force and we are looking already as a Government around the victim notification scheme. I am not sure if that is the kind of thing that she is speaking about because it is clear. Again, when we are speaking to victims and families of victims, they do not often feel that the victim notification scheme goes far enough, they think that it could be widened out to further offences, they think that it could be better in terms of communication. There is clearly an issue from victims that they do not feel that they are given enough information around the entire process of when somebody is in prisons, then the potential for them to go out and first grant of temporary release to be at home in terms of unscorted leave, escorted leave, and then, of course, eventually release the parole system, et cetera, et cetera. I know that that is all being looked at in relation to the parole system. The first grant of temporary release side of things, that will be no doubt part of what the victim's task force considers in the victim notification scheme will also be part of that. It was not specifically—I know that we are very aware of keeping the victim informed, but it was the team that is actually looking after the victim and their family, making sure that they—I think that Bernardus made the point, I think that Lee Scotland made the point, and other witnesses very forcibly made the point. Communication was absolutely essential. Everyone was up to date, so it was not even a case of getting the expert person there. It was ensuring that the whole team were up to speed and knew exactly where they were with the victim and what support had been given, where the problems were, et cetera, so that that could be as effective as possible. I think that, again, the victim's task force will help with that, because it will bring the police to the table, as well as other partners. The other thing that the Victim Support Scotland will do this year is, of course, introduce their homicide service. We are still discussing the name, whether that is the most appropriate or not, but, certainly, we have one person there or one stop shop almost in terms of providing support for an individual right throughout that really traumatic process and making sure that other partners are very much informed about what is going on. That will be a good—almost—test pilot for exactly what the convener is talking about. Thank you very much, and I encourage you, John. I follow on to that point, not specifically relating to the legislation, cabinet secretary. Previously, the committee heard in relation to the domestic abuse about coercive and controlling behaviour and how that might not always be evident to other parties. In relation to harassment of witnesses that happens on a regular basis, the internet social media is quite often used to that end. Does the task force have access to expertise on that because something that is often seen as very innocuous by a third party can turn out to be very pernicious and part of a longer process? The task force that our first meeting we didn't specifically talk about, the issue that John Finnie raises is an important issue, but it wasn't specifically mentioned. It was indirectly mentioned by a couple of stakeholders that were present that would have an interest in that, particularly or a few stakeholders that would have an interest in this, such as Scottish Women's Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland and Scotland Against Stocking, if I remember correctly, the name of the organisation that was there at the victim's task force. Our crime stats show demonstrably the rise in sexual offences that are taking place in the cyberspace. There's a lot of work going on to that. John Finnie will probably be aware, of course, that this largely involves young person on young person offences. Or maybe if I rephrase it, a lot of young person on young person offences, sexual offences are committed in the cyberspace, again not exclusively. Catherine Dyer's working group is looking into this very issue about young people and sexual offending and what steps we need to take collectively as a society, frankly, to try to deal with some of that as well. It is part of a wider stream of work that is going on in the Government, but in terms of specifically looking at a victim's task force, it is not discussed specifically at the first meeting, but I've got no doubt that it will inevitably be part of some of the work strands that we take forward as a task force. That concludes our line of questioning. Can I count the Cabinet Secretary and his officials for what's been a very worthwhile and encouraging evidence session? That concludes the public part of today's meeting. Our next meeting will be on 15 January 2019, when we'll hear from the Cabinet Secretary again this time on the management of offenders bill. We now move into private session and I suspend to allow the gallery to clear.