After section 19

Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 11:00 am on 4 March 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour 11:00, 4 March 2004

Group 11 concerns child witnesses and the training of court personnel. Amendment 66, in the name of Mike Pringle, is grouped with amendment 67.

Photo of Mike Pringle Mike Pringle Liberal Democrat 11:15, 4 March 2004

Training is a hugely important factor in the bill. Clearly, children are different from adults and they have to be treated differently. My view is that, up to now, children have not been treated differently in court from adults. Advocates and others view children as witnesses just like adult witnesses, which is not right.

If a young child is asked a question, they will give an honest and straightforward answer. If the question is repeated several times thereafter, however, one finds that the child begins to think that they should not have given that answer. They begin to question whether it was the right answer and to wonder whether they should give a different one. The child starts to doubt the answer that they gave, which can bring their evidence into question.

It is important that we train all the people who are involved in dealing with young people in our courts. It is fundamental that young people are treated in a different way. Advocates and others need to realise that it is important that they too can learn; none of us is too old to learn new ways of doing things. That applies in particular to advocates and others. It is important that good training is put in place and that it is put in place as soon as possible.

I move amendment 66.

Photo of Annabel Goldie Annabel Goldie Conservative

I understand the thrust behind what Mike Pringle said. I accept that an important point is involved, but I am concerned that the effect of amendment 66 would be to freeze implementation and, quite frankly, I would be very unhappy about that. The sooner that the act comes into force, the better it will be for all classes of vulnerable witnesses. I am unable to support amendment 66 for that reason.

Photo of Karen Whitefield Karen Whitefield Labour

I understand Mike Pringle's concerns on the issue. I am sure that all of us want to see that everyone who is involved in dealing with the provisions in the bill does so properly and is properly trained. As Annabel Goldie rightly pointed out, amendment 66 could lead to serious delays. Its effect would be to cause the bill not to be implemented as an act. The benefit and importance of the bill far outweigh the need for appropriate training, which it would be difficult to prescribe. I do not support amendments 66 and 67.

Photo of Hugh Henry Hugh Henry Labour

The issue of training has been raised a number of times during stages 1 and 2. The Executive is in no doubt that training and awareness raising are of vital importance to the successful implementation of the bill. That is why training and awareness raising will be a key priority for the victims and witnesses unit.

I am keen to ensure that all the professionals and volunteers who are involved in supporting vulnerable witnesses are given opportunities to improve and enhance their skills at identifying the needs of witnesses. That has to be done by ensuring that they give proper consideration to witnesses and that they provide witnesses with the right help to enable them to give their best evidence.

There is a great deal of expertise, knowledge and good will across Scotland and the unit will look to bringing that together so that people can share best practice. The unit will also want to ensure that every organisation is involved in training its staff. We will aim to ensure that there are clear training guidelines and that the relevant organisations are engaged in developing them.

I am aware of examples of good practice that are taking place already. For instance, Sheriff Principal Morrison, director of judicial studies, has said that the Judicial Studies Committee is developing training on child and vulnerable witnesses. The committee will use the guidance on questioning children in court, which we published last year, to help with that.

The Executive has been in discussion with the Faculty of Advocates, the Crown Office and others to ensure that significant attention is given to the provision of training for people who are engaged in the process. We believe that the collaborative approach is the best one and that it is not necessary to impose duties by statute.

In practice, it is not clear that amendment 66 would achieve the desired effect of ensuring that training takes place. I agree entirely with Annabel Goldie that, in the worst-case scenario, the amendment could even hold up the bill's implementation. From discussions with Mike Pringle, I know that that is not his intention. I hope that I have given him sufficient reassurance on the record to enable him to withdraw amendment 66.

Photo of Mike Pringle Mike Pringle Liberal Democrat

I am grateful for the minister's comments. My intention was not to delay the bill, but to raise the important issue of training, which is vital for us all. I beg leave to withdraw amendment 66.

Amendment 66, by agreement, withdrawn.