Scottish Government

Draft Standards for Remote Locations

• The group thanked SCS for their contribution to the standards and technical specification.
• It was agreed that the standards and specification were almost in final form and that only small refinements were needed. The 'minimum number' of people who would be present at the remote site to remain as stated in the document despite discussions.

• Group invited to submit comments on VWEA-05-04 to the Victims & Witnesses unit by Tuesday 1 February.

Productions

• The matter of how to deal with the viewing productions at remote locations was discussed. It was noted that there were already facilities available in courts to display productions on a screen to the witness. The conclusion was reached that the existing practice would remain and if a situation arose where no procedure existed then procedures would be developed in practice.
• It was agreed that as this was a procedural issue it should not form part of the draft Standards.

Cost

Who will pay

• The fact that cost issues had been omitted from the draft Standards was discussed
• The group were informed that the Victims and Witnesses Unit have a budget allocated to spend on capital and running costs for the implementation of the Vulnerable Witnesses Act but did not have the capacity or professional expertise to procure or manage any works to remote sites.
• The group were informed that quotes had been submitted by VSS and Children First for the cost to bring their remote units up to the required standard and SCS had given costs for technical equipment so that an estimate per unit could be reached.

Who will manage the procurement and management of works?

• Discussion arose regarding who would administer the procurement and management of any works to remote sites. The group discussed whether SCS would be the most appropriate agency for this job, as the remote site would be considered as an extension of the court during the process of the witness giving evidence. It was agreed that a decision on this would be required at Chief Executive level.
• It was agreed that due to time constraints, as an interim measure where there were no remote sites the legislation allowed for the use of another court building where the trial was not taking place to be used as a remote site. The group discussed the fact that a decision on who would procure and manage the required works was a matter of urgency as the ultimate aim would be that children under 12 would never need to enter a court building.
• The issue of periodical inspections of remote sites would be required to check compliance with standards was discussed and again it was argued that SCS would be best placed to assess the site, as it would be an extension of the court. It was agreed that a decision on this would be required at Chief Executive level.
• SCS informed the group that they had sufficient kit to equip six remote sites at short notice. This would on a temporary or semi-permanent basis dependant on agreement.

• Bilateral meeting with Chief Executive of SCS required urgently to agree responsibility for managing works at remote site.
• Bilateral meeting with Chief Executive of SCS required urgently to agree who would be responsible for periodical inspections of remote sites to check compliance with standards.

• It was explained that the drafting group for this document met twice to agree the purpose for the protocol & its contents and the paper VWEA-02-05 reflects the recommendations made.
• Discussions arose around the fact that the relationships mapped in the protocol would be affected by ownership of the equipment.
• The group were informed that SCS have a maintenance contract on their equipment with a four-hour callout deadline for repairs. It was agreed that this requirement should be stipulated as desirable if the equipment was to be provided by the site provider. This would mean that in the case of equipment failure the diet would simply be adjourned to the next day.
• Discussions arose around whether the protocol should simply be concerned with
• The relationship between the site owner and the agency managing the site or
• a document which would map the whole process and the relationships of all involved. Acting as a guide and as a point of reference for all involved including the owner of the site.
• The VWU decided that the protocol should be between the site owner and the managing agency but it was agreed that it would be useful for the site owner to be informed in a separate document of the likely procedures the site would be used for and who might be using it.
• Issues arose around who would notify and make arrangements with the remote site when a special measure had been granted or a pre-trial visit had been arranged. It was proposed that SCS might be best placed to manage a calendar and register of availability of remote sites to ensure effective co-ordination and a single route for communication between site owner and users. It was agreed that a decision on this would be required at Chief Executive level.
• In this respect there was a discussion around whether.
• it was the applicant's responsibility to find a remote site which is suitable and free before applying for a special measure?

Or

• it was for the court to have facilities in place to meet any application?
• It was agreed that a decision on this would be required at Chief Executive level.

• Group invited to submit comments on VWEA-02-04 to the Victims & Witnesses unit by Tuesday 1 February.
• Bilateral meeting with Chief Executive of SCS required urgently to agree who would be responsible for identifying the remote site booking it, managing it while it is being used for a court procedure and paying retention fees and/or rent

Identification of remote sites - annex A

• It was explained that the paper was an up-to-date summary of offers of remote sites and information about them.
• It was decided that the three most suitable remote sites would be approached and their owners would be requested to seek three quotes for the work required to bring the site to the required standard.
• Depending on the outcome of discussions with Chief Executive of the Court Service (see 5 above) SCS might be required to liaise with the owners of these sites to ensure that they meet the standards expected if they are to be used as an extension to the court.

Field Audit - annex B

• The group were advised that the questionnaire was being amended and that the re-issue was planned for February. Emails were requested from group on suggestion on how to encourage participation and any necessary changes required to make the questionnaire suitable for their specific agency but no major revisions were being sought.

• Group invited to submit suggestions on how to encourage participation and any necessary changes required to make the questionnaire suitable for their specific agency to the Victims & Witnesses unit by Wednesday 2 February.

draft 9.12.04

project specification for evaluating and monitoring impact of the Act - outline paper

• It was explained that the document had been created with the help of the SE Research unit and would ultimately form the core of the specification for procurement of work.

• Group invited to submit comments on VWEA-02-04 to the Victims & Witnesses unit by Wednesday 2 February.