Scottish Government

1. Additional details:

• Falkirk: This SCS site offers flexible use of 3 rooms on the first floor of a large office building on the outskirts of Falkirk.
• • One room of approx 30sqm can be divided by screens to provide an area for taking evidence and an area for relaxation. A separate waiting area could be developed in the large hallway.
  • A second large conference room is available with video conferencing equipment already installed. This can also be divided to provide a separate waiting area. The staff rest room is on the same floor and could be divided for use if required.
  • The accommodation would require some re-decoration and furnishing to achieve a child-friendly style, but otherwise it meets the current draft standards. The building is welcoming and has good disability access and facilities.
  • The only negatives are: i) the appearance of the office building itself is not 'child-friendly'; ii) the site is not served by public transport and is not within walking distance from the town centre.
• Aberdeen:
• • There are two offers available and one further offer to be available from April 2006. The sub-group may consider that, as Aberdeen will house a permanent High Court, it may be worthwhile proceeding with more than one site. The estimates for alterations to children 1 ^st sites may be considered excessive.
• Glasgow:
• • We will undoubtedly need at least one Glasgow site and as yet the Children 1 ^st site is the only offered.
• Edinburgh:
• • An offer has been made by Education Services with a view to accessing accommodation in primary schools. This may provide considerable flexibility and a constructive way forward. The CPC has agreed to set up a small working group to consider.

1. There has been preliminary discussion with John Hood, Executive Estates Services regarding rural agricultural accommodation in Perth, Oban and Stranraer. We also identified possible space in the Pensions Agency building in Galashiels. These offices have not been contacted as to their views and further contact should be made with John Hood, 0131 244 4285 and/or Wray Bodys, 01506 602 717, before pursuing these proposals further.
2. It is also noted that, whilst the spirit of the Act undoubtedly intends the remote sites to be other than any court building, the Act does not exclude the possibility of using CCTV facilities in a court building other than that where the trial is taking place and this may be used as a contingency arrangement in some areas.
3. The agreement as to the management of remote sites, legal agreements, upgrading and installation of technical equipment, will influence decisions made at this stage and the progress on continued identification of potential sites.

SEJD
Victims and Witnesses Unit

February 2005

ANNEX B
VULNERABLE WITNESSES ACT IMPLEMENTATION STEERING GROUP
EQUIPMENT AND ACCOMMODATION SUB GROUP

STATE OF READINESS
SECOND AUDIT

Introduction:

1. This is the second report into the readiness of courts and agencies across Scotland to implement phase one of the Vulnerable Witness (Scotland) Act 2004. It has been carried out on behalf of the Scottish Executive Victims and Witnesses Unit, Vulnerable Witnesses Act Implementation Steering Group and it's sub-groups.
2. The report sets out the audit process; collates the results of returned data; provides an assessment of local readiness in respect of each section; and suggests what implications these findings may have for the implementation of phase one.
3. The assessment of readiness is based on information received from representative organisations and uses the RAG 'traffic light' system.
4. The following criteria were agreed:

1. The Steering Group and sub-groups were advised of the intention to use a series of questionnaires to find out more about each organisation's awareness of the Act and general state of readiness to implement the first phase. The questionnaires included sections on local dialogue, availability of accommodation and equipment; readiness of information and support services for child witnesses and local and organizational training.
2. This report is based on the results of the second questionnaire. In addition to the questionnaire, the Unit field officer has conducted a number of field visits to multi-agency groups. Relevant information from these visits further informs the assessment of local readiness to deliver some of the special measures and other provisions of the Act in respect of child witnesses and to assist in reviewing any gaps in provision.
3. The report is intended to be a source of information to allow the multi-agency steering group, its sub-groups and the Victims and Witnesses Unit to benefit from a common understanding of the local issues in respect of the new legislation.

4. Audit Process:

5. A 2 ^nd questionnaire (annex A) was sent on 3 ^rd February 05 to those key organisations represented on the Implementation Steering Group in addition to Child Protection Committees and Justice for Children. This totalled 10 organisations and a list of participants is provided (annex B).
6. Each organisation was asked to either cascade the questionnaire out to local teams/offices or to provide contacts for distribution. Some organisations, eg Scottish Courts Service, distributed direct to members and returns were submitted direct to the Unit. Other organisations, eg Victim Support Scotland/ Witness Service and Scottish Children's Reporters Administration, chose to collate members' responses and provide an organisational response to the Unit. COPFS, VIA and the Law Society did not take part in the audit. Responses were requested by 23 ^rd February 05 and late returns were taking into account.

7. Findings:

8. 31 completed questionnaires have been returned. Of these:

1. As with the first audit, it is accepted that the findings from such a small number of participants are very limited and on their own cannot provide us with a complete picture of readiness.
2. In addition to the questionnaire, field visits have been made to:

A further 4 CPC meetings are planned.

1. The information gathered from these visits has been included in the appropriate sections and the overall assessment of awareness and readiness.
2. In some sections, participants were asked to provide a score on a scale of 1-5. These scores are interpreted as:

1. The findings are set out under the different questionnaire sections A-F and provide a breakdown in relation to Procurator Fiscal areas and Sheriffdoms.

2. Section A, Part 1 - General Awareness of the Act

3. All 31 participants responded to this section. Of these, 12 participants gave a score 2 or less and are therefore assessed as RED. 18 gave a score of 3/4 and are assessed as AMBER. 1 gave a score of 5 which represents ready or Green. The two National Organisation of VSS/ WS and SCRA assessed themselves as AMBER.
4. Local awareness/understanding of the Act for Sheriffdoms and Procurator Fiscal Areas can be demonstrated as:

Total Fiscal Areas - 11

Total Sheriffdoms - 6

Section A, Part 2 - Local Dialogue

1. Participants were asked if there had been any inter-agency dialogue in respect of the implementation of the Act or if they knew of any plans for such. Responses were given as Yes or No to each question:
2. Of the 31 participants, the majority (16 participants) were not aware of any local dialogue. 15 participants either had been involved in inter-agency dialogue or knew of plans for such. However, of those 15, there was a wide spread across the Fiscal areas and Sheriffdoms. The route for dialogue included CPC meetings, Court user groups, area COPFS meetings, and other local multi-agency working groups. The two national organisations of WS and SCRA both advised of their involvement with local dialogue.
3. As a risk factor this is represented as:

Total Fiscal areas - 11

Total Sheriffdoms - 6

Section B - Remote Locations

1. The questionnaire asked if participants were aware of an identified remote site in their area. Responses were YES or NO. 29 participants responded to this section.
   5 participants responded 'Yes' as having identified a remote site in their area, however 2 of these were in other court buildings. The remaining 24 participants responded 'No' or 'Not Known'. As there are no sites yet fully equipped and operational, no area has been assessed as GREEN.

The results show a risk factor in this section as:

Total Fiscal Areas - 11

Total Sheriffdoms - 6

Section C - Local and National Training Provision

1. Participants were asked about existing training and planned training and the responses were given as Yes or No. The questionnaire acknowledged that some national organisations have indicated that training events are being planned centrally and are expected to be rolled out to their own teams.
2. Of the 31 responses, 9 indicated that they had received some training or were aware of training plans. This number included the two national responses from VSS/ WS and SCRA, 2 from Child Protection Committees, 4 from Scottish Court Services, 1 from another voluntary organisation.
3. These results can be translated in a local risk status of:

Total Fiscal areas - 11

And shown as an Sheriffdom status:

Total Sheriffdoms - 6

Section D - Providing Information and Support

1. This was a difficult section to assess as it was not fully relevant to all participants and many left the section blank. The comments in this section indicated that most agencies and participants regard VIA, social work and the court based WS as the agencies most likely to be dealing with information and support issues.
2. In part one of this section (Providing Information), 2 participants gave a score of 5 and were assessed as GREEN. 8 participants gave a score of 3 or 4 and are assessed as AMBER. The majority, (12 participants) gave a score of 2 or 1 and are assessed as RED.
3. In part two of the section (Providing Support), 2 participants reported a score of 5; 10 participants including the national organisations, reported a score of 3 or 4; the remaining 10 who completed this section scored 1 or 2 and were assessed as RED.
4. The results obtained through the questionnaire, also shows a variation in agency readiness to provide information and support to vulnerable witnesses. The responses from SCRA, VSS Witness Service and other voluntary agencies, rated their readiness as AMBER, whereas participants from the police, social work and CPCs rated their readiness as RED.
5. The risk status for areas and agencies is shown as:

Section E - Availability of Screens, CCTV and Vulnerable Witness Room

1. This section was designed solely for SCS participants and we therefore had 20 responses. They were asked to give a score of 1-5 in relation to accessibility of the equipment and to its fitness for purpose. The area risk status is difficult to determine, as there were vast differences between courts within a single fiscal area or Sheriffdom. For example, the Fiscal area and Sheriffdom of Lothian and Borders, indicated a status of GREEN in Edinburgh, but RED in West and East Lothian. Nonetheless the data is given as follows:

Section F - General readiness

1. In this section, participants were asked to indicate their general readiness using a score of 1-5. 28 of the 31 participants were able to provide a score, others leaving it blank or as a NK.

The risk status is again expressed according to fiscal area and Sheriffdoms.

Field Visits

1. During the period of this audit, a total of 15 field visits have been completed and a further 4 are planned. These include 7 local voluntary organisations, 7 CPC groups and 1 ADSW. The information from these visits has been used to add to the assessment of readiness in some of the audit sections and brief details are given below.
2. CPCs have increasingly provided a useful route to local dialogue. The Act and its implementation have begun to appear on the agenda of an increasing number of local meetings and it is fair to say that local dialogue has been increasing.
3. The circulation of a guide to the Act has been identified as one of the means by which general awareness has been raised. The other significant factor has been the roadshows.
4. The Witness Service and some other Voluntary organisations were also able to cite internal information systems as increasing their awareness and understanding. However, awareness is still judged to be low amongst the police and key non criminal justice agencies such as social work, education and health.
5. Field visits have also served as a vehicle for the identification of remote sites and 4 areas have formed local working groups to pursue this further. The formal audit results might suggest that participants have not been aware of the identified potential sites in their areas. When adding the information from field visits, it is possible to indicate that:

1. The field visits have tended to concur with the risk status of section C on the provision of training, in that the majority of areas/agencies have not received training and did not identify any training plans. The key criminal justice agencies tended to assume that they would be provided with guidance from their own organisations, although many at local level lacked knowledge on key procedural issues and were anxious about this. Those Sheriffs unfamiliar with technical equipment were found to be anxious about the need for training and remote sites.
2. The greatest gaps in training provision were most often identified within non criminal justice agencies. The gaps related in particular to the provision of information and support to child witnesses, so that, although the VSS Witness Service and Children 1 ^st were generally more focussed and were satisfied that they were on target to be ready to meet those needs, other children and families services were much less confident. The information gathered is discussed further in the conclusion and recommendations below.

3. Summary of findings:

4. This audit is intended to provide an indication of progress made towards readiness for implementation of the first phase of the Act on 1 ^st April 2005. Its findings have been compared to the findings of the first audit detailed in the State of Readiness First Audit report in December 2004.
5. As with the first audit, the response to the questionnaire has been less than hoped for, and the information and conclusions are therefore limited, although part of this report also takes account of the less formal information gathered during field visits.
6. An additional difficulty has been the wide range of scores given by participants from within a single fiscal area or sheriffdom, which necessarily affected the stated area risk status.
7. Section A1 measured general awareness and the data shows a significant increase in awareness across the fiscal areas and sheriffdoms. 3 more fiscal areas show a status of AMBER and 1 area is now shown as GREEN. Agencies have cited the promotional material, roadshows and field visits as helping to increase their general awareness.
8. Similar progress is seen in Section A2, which measured local dialogue. 9 of 11 Fiscal areas are shown with a risk status of GREEN, as are all 6 sheriffdoms. The local authority CPCs, court user's groups and one area COPFS meeting are all cited as having addressed the implementation of the Act at their meetings. In some areas, a working group has met, or plans to meet, to consider the key areas of remote sites and training.
9. In contrast, the audit data in Section B suggests fewer identified remote sites than in the first audit. 2 more areas are now shown as having a risk status of RED, rather then AMBER as before. However, the field visit summary shows that there are more areas with identified sites than participants have known about. This may not be surprising, as no sites have yet been authorised or approved and therefore offers of remote accommodation have not been made public. Using this additional information, the risk status has in fact improved, with 3 more areas (7 of the total 11) now assessed as AMBER.
10. Even whilst acknowledging this progress, it should still be noted that this section is seen to cause most anxiety amongst the range of agencies involved both as audit participants and during field visits. It should also be noted that, amongst the SCS participants, some considered that any CCTV facility in another court within the same sheriffdom could be regarded as an identified remote site.
11. Section C measured the provision of training to assist the implementation process and took account of any planned training. Again, the audit data suggests the state of readiness has worsened, with 1 more area now assessed as RED.
12. There may be two explanations for this. Firstly it is evident that many participants in the key criminal justice agencies, such as COPFS and the Police, are not aware of their own organisation's training plans and remain anxious about their own lack of procedural knowledge and expertise. It is also likely that the slight increase in secondary non-criminal justice participants in this audit will have identified, for the first time, the lack of training plans for those agencies. These agencies identified the professional and practice issues of obtaining a child's views on special measures as the most significant training need. This is further addressed in the recommendations.
13. There has been some progress in Section D regarding the readiness to provide information and support to child witnesses, although it is appreciated that without the participation of COPFS and VIA, the findings are particularly limited. We can note, however, that 2 more agencies showed a risk status of AMBER for the provision of information, whilst 4 more showed a status of AMBER for provision of support. This includes the national response from VSS/ WS, which has been identified by many participants as the agency most likely to be providing these services.
14. As in the first audit, Section E measured the availability of court resources of screens and CCTV, with an additional question about its fitness for purpose. This additional question was in response to the findings and comments from the first audit regarding the poor quality of screens and equipment. This audit showed some progress with 2 more areas now assessed as GREEN for the use of screens and 3 more assessed as GREEN for the use of CCTV. 3 fiscal areas are still assessed as RED for each facility although there are no sheriffdoms showing a status of RED.
15. The final S ection, F, measured the overall state of readiness of participants and this audit showed some progress. 4 fewer areas showed a status of RED; 4 more showed a status of AMBER. Of those agencies who participated, there were 3 more assessed as AMBER from Red.

16. Conclusions and Recommendations:

17. Despite its limitations, this report is submitted as an assessment of local readiness to implement the first phase of the Vulnerable Witness (S) Act 2004. It identifies the progress made between December 2004 and February 2005. The report also demonstrates the need for further progress, particularly in the areas of training, remote sites and court resources.
18. In considering the findings of the audit, it is important also to take into account the developments of the sub-groups which gave yet to impact on the state of readiness and on local agencies and their knowledge of the implementation process.
19. SCS has now assumed responsibility for authorising, approving and managing all remote sites and information about this will be accessible on the SCS website and also made available to the key local parties and courts. In the first instance, SCS will identify sites within their own estate, allowing more time for the development of true remote sites in each area and an evaluation of the demand. The potential remote sites identified to date have not been authorised but remain on a list to be considered throughout the coming year. This will address the gaps in section B of the audit.
20. SCS and the Equipment and Accommodation sub-group are also preparing an inter-agency protocol intended to provide guidance for the use of a remote site as a special measure. This will further add to the readiness of each area.
21. Audit findings suggest that gaps remain in the provision of court equipment, with the readiness of screens being identified as a continuing priority in many areas.
22. The Training and Communications sub-group expects to hear that COPFS, Law Society and SCRA procedural materials are available for distribution within their own organisations in order to respond to the gaps identified in section C. In addition, the majority of the guidance pack on the use of special measures is on target, to be distributed to local agencies by 9 ^th May. This will address many of the training issues raised by audit participants and during field visits.
23. The remaining training needs identified by those non-criminal justice agencies, are due to be addressed by a working group meeting on 22 ^nd March, whilst each local authority is to be asked to identify a lead officer as a route to making further progress in sections B and C.
24. The Steering Group and sub-groups may consider that the areas assessed as RED should be specifically targeted in order to raise their state of readiness before April 1 ^st. The audit findings have also provided information from individual agencies and the Steering Group and sub-groups may consider that these should now be specifically targeted as a matter of priority in order to fill these individual gaps and lack of readiness. The data used to identify these individual areas is available on request.
25. The Steering Group and sub-groups may also wish to consider again, how best to achieve a fuller assessment at the next stage in the audit and how we can encourage greater participation in the review process. It is acknowledged that the Monitoring and Evaluation process may interface with any further audit.

SEJD
Victims and Witnesses Unit

March 2005