Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning to both witnesses. My question follows on from Sandy Brindley’s point about the evidence of vulnerable witnesses. The cabinet secretary has said that she proposes to lodge an amendment around the opportunity to give prerecorded evidence. What exactly would you like the amendment to say? What should it look like? It is an important amendment, which will come before us quite soon. It is important that we get it right—the sexual offences court will not work if it is a sexual offences court only in name; it must have all the right stuff around it.

Sandy, what should that look like, and where should the choices be for victims and witnesses? We were beginning to touch on that a minute ago.

Good morning. This is giving me flashbacks to stage 1 and the enormity of the decision. As you heard earlier, it is clear that victims groups feel that moving to the proposed 10 out of 15 would be worse for victims. That is a compelling case, but we have heard another compelling case from you that other systems work effectively with near unanimity. Where do you think the Government got that suggestion? From a lay perspective, it feels like—I am sure that when the Government speaks to us about this, it will tell me that I am totally wrong—it is trying to please both points of view but is running the risk of not satisfying anybody. What is the thinking behind that, from a legal point of view?

Do you ever get an indication or feeling from the victims who you deal with that pre-recorded evidence could be less effective, so it is important to give evidence in person? If that is the case—I am not sure whether you are going to tell me that you have found that, but I saw Sandy Brindley nod a wee bit—could an amendment to the bill be lodged to try to alleviate that concern?

Your submission discusses the Council of Europe’s Venice principles. How does the SPSO’s performance and structures compare against those benchmarks?

What are your thoughts on the ombudsman having an own-initiative power to investigate cases? Would that bring any benefits?

Yes. That is my point: what is the ombudsman’s remit in certain situations? Thanks very much. Both of you have given your evidence passionately, as did the other witnesses.

That is fair enough.

The committee is aware that the SPSO has some very poor Trustpilot scores and reviews, and those have been highlighted by a recent petitioner to the Parliament. Can you give us any indication of how the committee might get a fuller picture of what the public perception is? It is possibly a wee bit in contrast to your own submissions.

I do not want to put you on the spot, but are you able to give a practical example of where the own-initiative power might be used?

That is really interesting. Thank you.