28 September 2011
EQUALITY ADVISORY GROUP
Meeting on 28 Sept 2011 at 10am
Scottish Prosecution College, Legal House, Glasgow
Marsha Scott (Chair)
Linsay Mackay (Minutes)
|
Members
|
Delegates
|
|
Bushra Iqbal
Monica Lee-MacPherson
Pramila Kaur
Susan Anderson
Joe O’Donnell, HM Inspectorate
|
Ruth McQuaid
Karen Kennedy
Sandy Mackie
|
|
Apologies:
|
Attending:
|
|
Alan McCloskey
Bill Gray
Bruce Adamson
Jim Sweeney
Liz O’Neill
Tim Hopkins
|
David Young, Scottish Court Service
|
1. Welcome and Introductions:
1.1 MS welcomed the group to the meeting and asked all present to introduce themselves. RMcQ explained that she is holds both the Equality and the Victims corporate portfolios for COPFS. Andrew Laing, Area Procurator Fiscal for Highlands and Islands, holds the corporate portfolio for Witnesses.
1.2 PK states she is conscious that there will be lots of victims that are not part of the system and therefore not knowing organisations or not comfortable linking in with them. She asks RMcQ how this role will interact with them. RMcQ stated there should be opportunity for all to have access to Victim Support and Victim Information and Advice team depending on the type of crime. RMcQ was keen for others’ views of how to engage with people who have no links with organisations, although reiterates all should have access to Victim Support.
1.3 MS asked RMcQ about the mechanisms for engagement with victims? RMcQ replied that there is an informal internal framework re engagement at the moment with VIA and Policy. However, RMcQ has been establishing links externally and has been out visiting various groups over the last few months. RMcQ explained they are looking at the idea of having an individual champion role for various types of issues, for example a prosecutor leading on a particular crime i.e. domestic abuse. This has as of yet not been fully developed. At the first instance there will be consultation re this therefore it is very much a work in progress at present.
1.4 PK highlights the issues re minority groups and making links with them. Her concern is to stop people falling through the net. MS states you cannot create policy based on individual response – there has to be a systematic response to issues rather than a reaction to an individual incident.
1.5 BI commented on the internal structure of COPFS – that they are looking into their existing structure and within that, allocating specific responsibility in terms of champions for particular issues. COPFS is doing that just now, they are looking at how they are going to incorporate Equality and Diversity into that existing structure. BI states there is so much diversity even between diverse groups and the approach has to be that we do not leave out the most vulnerable people. She states the key point for RMcQ to take is that no group should be left out. For example the issues of Deaths for faith communities, the domestic abuse issue for minority ethnic communities.
1.6 MS states this is the aspiration. The application of an approach will require some outcomes attached to it. After RMcQ’s consultation process perhaps the outcomes could be presented to the group so that the EAG can support those outcomes.
1.7 BI states that Victim Support is not in a position to provide support to minority ethnic people at present. RMcQ states that a communication link is the main challenge. The challenge is also with victims who do not engage with any of the support organisations. How then do we reach people in a way which is practical to do so? RMcQ asks for thoughts on the people with whom we have difficulty engaging with who do not wish to be provided with information.
ACTION POINT 1 – Agenda item for next meeting: - Role of Victims Champion and support available for victims
2. Minutes of previous meetings
2.1 The minutes of the meeting held in the Civic Centre, Livingston on 12th May 2011 were approved.
2.2 There is one minor change to be made on page 1 of the Community Engagement Event minutes.
2.3 There was a discussion about an issue raised at the Community Engagement meeting in May 2011 by Nina Giles from ELREC (Edinburgh & Lothians Regional Equality Council). MS wondered how the group should formally capture feedback from the engagement events? KK suggested using the Action Points process to formally follow up when issues arise at engagement events. PM suggested a quick 5 minute survey of active community groups could be useful to get an idea of what is happening on the ground and might throw up other issues. MS stated this is something we would raise with COPFS. The overarching concern is the need to have a systematic response in some way – it is the responsibility of the Chair during community meetings to indicate what the follow up is going to be and record this in the minutes.
ACTION POINT 2 – KK to contact Graham Fraser for update from research initiated by issue raised by Nina Giles and forward to group.
2.4 BI stated that community meetings like these are a big asset for COPFS to assess their policies. They are a great way to both challenge and feedback to COPFS about their policies. BI believes that the victim’s perception of the COPFS response to a complaint is always “it is in the public interest” and so it becomes a “them” and “us” in the minds of the victim. COPFS needs to stress that the interests of the individual are taken into account because the individual is PART of the “public”.
2.5 RMcQ responded by saying that sometimes there is a conflict between the wishes of the victim and the public interest. The challenge is how COPFS best communicates our decisions when they are at odds with the wishes of the victim.
2.6 MLM added that the minority community in the Highlands and Islands feel very small and insignificant and don’t feel connected to COPFS. She has heard about many “incidents” but the individuals don’t want to report them to the police. RMcQ responded that the aim is to ensure equality and diversity teams are revitalised and there will be visits re this. As a consequence hopefully you will see more visible things happening in the Highlands.
2.7 MS noted that the role of the EAG is not to communicate between groups and COPFS but rather to facilitate discussion between COPFS and community groups.
2.8 PK raised the impact of cut backs – the great effect they have had on smaller community groups – there needs to be an awareness of this. RMcQ stated community groups should be invited into Area Diversity Team meetings and highlighted that she has suggested this, as well as Scottish Court Service inclusion.
ACTION POINT 3 - RMcQ to set up meeting between MLM and Andrew Laing, Area Procurator Fiscal for Highlands and Islands.
2.9 RMcQ stated we have to be realistic in terms of the resources that COPFS have available for public engagement. We are looking at how to better engage with the wider community and still get the message across. MS finished by noting why a systematic approach is needed for community engagement.
2.11 MS states this shows clear intent internally to get people through the packs, however, e-learning is just one of the mechanisms to allow for understanding of equality and diversity, which is the point. However, a discussion about COPFS training strategy is for another time.
ACTION POINT 4 – Staff equality and diversity training to be put on agenda for November meeting.
2.12 MS directs the group back to the May 2011 Community Meeting minutes. MS notes at page 5 the sharing of minutes of the meeting. KK will do this.
ACTION POINT 5 – KK to send the minutes of the Community Engagement meeting to all the participants.
2.13 MS stated that the EAG they should think about the issues of LGBT re gaps identified.
ACTION POINT 6 – MS to meet with JS and TH to discuss LGBT abuse.
3. Matters arising
3.1 Action points - MS ran through action points from the last meeting:
· She states that the new Stonewall report results should be available in January.
· AP7 - Technical problems were noted re access to diversity e-package.
· AP8 - Quarterly updates re implementation plan is on the agenda already.
· AP9 – KK advised Equality and Diversity Programme is not yet ready to be evaluated.
· AP10 – access to OCVW e package – MS stated this will be included in the training discussion next meeting.
· AP11 and AP12 are already on the agenda.
3.2 SM provided an update on current management activities.
3.2.1 SM stated they have a draft Fair Treatment Policy which will be the main policy to allow people who are discriminated against, harassed, bullied etc. to complain and find justice. SM stated it is a concise, well researched policy with lots of links into other policies.
3.2.2 SM further explained that, as part of the overall project RMcQ is running, they have created a new survey form to find out about people with protected characteristics in our organisation.
3.2.3 SM explained that the Staff Disability and Advisory Group (SDAG) met in Paisley on the 14th September 2011. The group were invited to meet in Paisley as part of the Argyle and Clyde Area Diversity Week. Representatives of the FDA and PCS trade unions as well as members of the Argyle and Clyde area diversity team also attended the meeting.
ACTION POINT 7 – Copy of Surplus Staff Policy to be sent to the EAG before the next meeting in November and item to be added to agenda.
3.3 Written update from ‘Proud in COPFS’ from David Casey.
3.3.1 KK reminded the group that the update had been emailed to all members prior to the meeting. DY asked about the confidential email account set up – how do you promote with external agencies to let them know this exists? KK responds that the group organisers have been in discussions with various different organisations and including Scottish Government and Stonewall and hopes to run or be involved in several different networking events across the country.
3.3.2 BI asked if COPFS have specific groups to represent other protected characteristics? MS stated this is an issue for later.
3.3.3 RMcQ stated they are looking at someone to champion different issues along the lines of protected characteristics. This is a work in progress re plans for the future. MS stated she would like a sense of an analysis of where the biggest gaps are within organisations to allow for an explicit decision to be made to prioritise particular items.
3.3.4 RMcQ said that she is interested to hear views on how get people to take on a role in relation to particular protected characteristics.
3.3.5 KK explains that COPFS have a Staff Disability Advisory Group because it was a statutory duty to create one. KK explained they now have an LGBT group as a result of their work with the Stonewall organisation. The results of a Stonewall staff survey highlighted that some LGBT staff did not feel comfortable about revealing their sexual orientation to work colleagues for fear of a negative reaction. Stonewall advised that creating an LGBT network would encourage LGBT staff to feel comfortable about their identity at work. KK referred to some staff hiding some protected characteristics and stated this was COPFS’ way of saying ‘you are not alone; here is a network to engage with and support you.’ KK acknowledges you cannot force people to engage with a group and states that there is still reluctance among some staff to step forward and be publically known. The Network is still very new and they do not know where the demand for such a group lies at present.
3.3.6 PK stated there can be lot of learning and sharing re the work Tim is doing. BI stated vulnerable groups are not as active – need to do work with them as well. MS explained the fact we are working with one has no implications on whether we should or should not work with another. MS would like to follow up on this – suggests annual report on make up of organisations of staff and what internal and analytical process are in place in this regard. It would be useful to have some data.
ACTION POINT 8 – MS asked SM to provide an analysis of COPFS staff in relation to the protected characteristics and compare it with statistics for the general population of Scotland so that any gaps in representation can be identified.
3.4 JO’D gave an update from HM Inspectorate of Prosecution.
3.4.1 JO’D informed the group that the Annual Report from the HM Inspectorate of Prosecution will be published on Fri 30th September 2011. He provided some background information about the role and remit of the Inspectorate in relation to COPFS. The focus for now and for future work is on thematic reports, created in conjunction with external partners, for example Victim Support Scotland, the Police Inspectorate and other suitable groups.
3.4.2 The Inspectorate has published 3 thematic reports during this financial year: Community Engagement Report, Learning and Development, Services to Victims.
3.4.3 The Community Engagement report made 14 recommendations for COPFS. The Lord Advocate accepted the terms of the report and welcomed the recommendations. Work on implementation has started. The COPFS in their response have indicated their adoption of the Scottish Government standards of community engagement.
3.4.4 One recommendation, of particular relevance, addressed the issue of staff competence when delivering community engagement activities and a possible gap in training for some staff to competently carry out such activities.
3.4.5 JO’D then provided information about future thematic reports: there will be 4 thematic reports re victims. The first one has been published and deals with when a case does not go to court. More than half of victim cases never reach court and therefore these victims find themselves immediately divorced from the infrastructure that supports victims whose cases do proceed to court. The key issue for COPFS is to give people information – telling people at key stages in their case what is happening. This is reactively given at present but the Inspectorate has recommended that that is proactively given to victims.
3.4.6 The next report, Victims II, will be about victims in summary cases which go to court. Thereafter, Victims III will look at high court or sheriff and jury cases. Victims IV will deal with sexual offences and more serious cases generally.
3.4.7 BI highlighted that feedback is the key issue at the moment – people don’ t even realise that they can contact COPFS about their case. The minority ethnic community are waiting to be given information. There exists a “Them vs. Us” perception. So, people don’t have any information, they don’t have the confidence to contact COPFS directly therefore feedback from minority groups will be negative because nobody is telling the community what is going on.
3.4.8 MS stated this would be difficult in the sense that there is not adequate victim support out there and it’s not COPFS job to provide this. JO’D agreed that Victim Support is not the panacea for all victim issues in Scotland
3.4.9 MS noted that there is a large evidence base that if you offer support mechanisms in first 24 hrs of a domestic abuse incident then take up from the victim will be very high. With regard to victims whose cases don’t go to court, offering information proactively is a really good recommendation but MS wants to know how people are going to measure whether they are doing this or not.
3.4.10 MLM stated it is important to keep people informed – something very simple – a pre-printed letter could be issued every three months saying ‘we’ve not forgotten about you, case is still at this stage etc.’ Not all victims need support but all will need information.
3.4.11 RMcQ highlighted IT issues re notifying witnesses of the fact if no proceedings are being taken. JO’D then stated that victims tend to be lost in witness issues, as an aside, when very few witnesses are victims.
3.4.12 PK raised the point of the reluctance to use the – 0844 number as well as the fact people receive lots of letters on a daily basis already. There needs to be different forms of engagement. She suggests it is just as easy and time consuming to pick up phone as it is writing a letter. There then followed a discussion between RMcQ and JO’D regarding the practicalities of providing victim updates based on the COPFS Case Management system.
3.4.13 JD states that COPFS are missing a PR possibility when victims are not informed of successful prosecutions or when accused persons receive prison sentences.
3.4.14 SA raised with JO’D the topic of patients who assault NHS staff and the police are involved. She states that staff never hear back from either the police or COPFS what happens to the case. Feedback has been if they phone the fiscal they are not given information because the person phoning is not the victim but perhaps someone with line management responsibility. SA asked why fiscals seem reluctant to give information on proceedings? JO’D replied there may be a traditional reluctance from lawyers to divulge case information which is being slowly eroded. If a case is still under consideration he understands the reluctance but key points should be told i.e. he/she is going to be prosecuted. RMcQ challenges that there is reluctance on the part of the fiscal and states that COPFS is a reactive service. RMcQ’s understanding is if someone writes and asks for an update about a case we have a policy of telling them. The challenge rather is being proactive in this regard. SA highlights this is the feeling in general in the health service. SA thinks the problem is witnesses do not know the process to get the information from COPFS or the NHS rather then the fact they are being refused the information.
3.4.15 BI raised the point that phoning COPFS on the 0844 number can be very expensive especially when lots of questions have to be answered to establish the identity of the person seeking the information from COPFS.
3.4.16 MS states the group should wait until there is an official response from COPFS to the Victims I report and we should hold discussions until we do. In Joe’s update at next meeting we will go back and check where we are with this.
ACTION POINT 10 - Information provision for victims to be added to the agenda for the next EAG meeting.
3.4.17 JO’D informed the group he has also started a report on summary case preparation – case adjournment is a big issue for both COPFS, the police and the Scottish Court Service. They are looking at decision making by fiscals on those cases –They are looking into what the reasons are behind making the motion in the first place
3.4.18 MS asks JO’D how the Inspectorate decides what to inspect. He stated they take a risk based approach. The programme of reports is decided by JO’D. The Inspectorate has an advisory group which consists of two lay members who advise on topic selection. The topic must be related to criminal justice but this also covers civil proceedings. Certain issues are so big they pick themselves e.g. victims. The Lord Advocate can also direct him to inspect something but, to date, this has not happened.
3.5 Update from Equality Act Project Team – Ruth McQuaid
3.5.1 RMcQ provided a detailed update of the work of the Project Team. They have met on 3 occasions since May 2011. RMcQ is the Project Manager, Nancy Darroch is the Project Co-ordinator and Crown Agent Catherine Dyer is the Project Sponsor. A number of different workstreams and now been created and she invited the members of the EAG to indicate which workstreams they would be interested in becoming involved with.
3.5.2 Products over the next three years include a new equality and diversity e-learning pack, a revised EqIA tool, a promotional DVD, a revised Area Diversity Team pack, a series of outreach programmes focusing on different strands (first one to be on sectarianism, in Lanarkshire), Community database, revision of both internal and external web sites, revision of some information booklets, a community newsletter and a Hate Crime conference.
3.5.3 MLM suggests the newsletter should have one side in general for COPFS etc and the other side for local information. RM states that she needs to look at practicalities re dissemination and to whom.
3.5.4 MS asks what the purpose is of creating a newsletter seeing as it will be very labour intensive – perhaps it is a blunt tool if you have a specific issue with a specific community? BI states that they would need to look at needs of very diverse communities and for it to be effective with minority ethnic communities, the newsletter would have to be translated into several different languages.
3.5.5 After a general discussion about the merits of creating a newsletter, the general feeling among the group was that it would be a lot of effort for a very uncertain level of return on investment. SA and BI suggested improving COPFS web presence and its accessibility and using more online forms of communication would yield a better return on investment.
3.5.6 PK states with regard community engagement – it involves shared learning – it has to be a 2 way process i.e. engaging with other partners to learn from them. COPFS can benefit from other agencies e.g. ACPOS have good community engagement strategies for example having a stall at Asian Melas – there is no COPFS stall but the police and NHS do have them. As regards the website, PK wondered if there is facility for it to be more interactive so people can engage e.g. postings on forums/blog etc? RMcQ highlights that they do have a website address for people to communicate to us.
3.5.7 SA raises a point re PowerPoint presentations – can RMcQ send them to external people if they wanted to do an awareness raising presentation re COPFS? RMcQ stated that the DVD could be used for this purpose as it should explain the roles and responsibilities of COPFS.
3.5.8 MS stated it was not clear that there was an equalities focus to some of the Project work – a general observation that there is some blurring on whether it is general capacity building or really equality focused? Fore example there is disagreement as to whether sectarianism is an equality issue. MS suggests that perhaps RMcQ should check that all of the workstreams fit under the equalities agenda given that it is a very ambitious set of projects.
3.5.9 Ms noted that BI was a member of the Implementation Team as well as the EAG and wished to clarify who she was representing on the Implementation Team. RMcQ stated that BI has an advisory role on the implementation team and is presently included as a volunteer. KK stated that the fact Bushra is member of the EAG is purely coincidental, she is there as a representative of an ethnic minority group within the community.
3.5.10 MS asked, in relation to the Lord Advocate’s programme of events, what are they designed to address? RMcQ replied that their purpose is to raise awareness of hate crime legislation and to give a greater understanding of what is seen to be acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in society now.
3.5.11 MS asked if the Implementation Team have looked at what other projects have found as outcomes from such activities. RMcQ replied that the overarching aim is to raise awareness of all hate crime legislation. COPFS has carried out work with others before and found that when school children themselves are involved in relaying the message to their peers, the information is picked up much better by their peers. MS suggests that perhaps the Team are further along in the project it would be good to consult with EAG regarding ways of monitoring the impact and responses to such events.
3.5.12 RM goes onto highlight the conflict of engaging in preventative work: one would hope to see a reduction in hate crime figures but quite often there is an increase in reporting figures as targeted groups become less willing to accept abusive behaviour and more willing to report incidences to the police. BI states that sometimes that is the success – an increase in reporting figures for hate crime.
3.5.13 PK adds that there are issues about people knowing the different roles that the justice sector partners play and not just lumping everything together so community confidence is not damaged. RMcQ stated that hopefully this would be the objective of the community DVD - to provide clarity on the role of COPFS.
3.5.14 PK further highlights that sectarianism is alive and kicking within minority faith groups also – its not just Catholics and Protestants.
3.5.15 MS states for it to be an equality based issue systemic discrimination must be shown. RMcQ highlights that in Scotland it will be found that people have been discriminated against on the basis of being either a Catholic or a Protestant. KK agrees with RMcQ: sectarianism should come under the Equality Act because it is offensive behaviour based on belonging to a protected characteristic – you are a target because you are a member of a particular group.
3.5.16 MS states this is a good topic to pick up at a future meeting.
ACTION POINT 11 - future agenda item: Invite Bruce Adamson and someone else from the EHRC to speak to the EAG in 2012.
- Access to Witness Statements – written update from Rosemary Fallon.
4.1 SA asked, in relation to solemn cases, how the decision to withhold a witness statement is made when it states at s.54(2)(a) that they can be given such? RMcQ explained that the policy is about access to police statements people gave. Witness precognition statements are never provided to either the defence or to a witness.
4.2 In relation to summary cases, SA asked when a witness statement would be withheld? KK responds that prosecutors will always have the discretion to not allow access to a witness statement. For example there may be concern that the witness will change their evidence once in the Witness Box or become a “hostile” (to the Crown) witness and providing access to their statement allows them the opportunity to rehearse their amended story. KK says that examples of when a prosecutor might withhold a witness statement are contained in the policy document.
4.3 SA asked about the lack of witness expenses in order to travel to a fiscal’s office. KK explained the rationale behind this: the witness is coming to court anyway where they will get the opportunity to access their statement. If they want to come prior to the trial date to see their statement that will be at their own expense. Travel expenses are available for court appearances.
4.4 KK highlights that witness statements cannot be removed from the court or from a Procurator Fiscal office in case the document is mislaid and sensitive case information or witness contact details enter the public arena.
4.5 KK explains that there is a pilot project running in Glasgow Sheriff Court since the introduction of the legislation in June 2011 to see what the take up is of witnesses availing of the opportunity to access their witness statements and also to see if there are any accessibility issues raised by witnesses.
4.6 MS wonders how a witness is told that they now have access to their police statement and also how COPFS are made aware of any accessibility needs of a witness. RMcQ replied that COPFS is reliant on the police to notify us of any vulnerabilities or additional needs of witnesses. KK adds that in solemn cases, Victim Information and Advice (VIA) are involved with witnesses at an early stage in proceedings and they ensure that witness can access their statements. In summary cases, all witnesses receive a citation pack which includes details on how to access their police witness statement.
Action Point 12 – KK will let the group know the outcome of the Glasgow pilot once it has finished.
5. Database of Projects for Equality Impact Assessment – KK
5.1 KK distributed copies of three separate lists of current COPFS projects from Strategy and Delivery Division (SDD), Policy Division and Human Resources. The lists will keep a track on progress and completion of equality impact assessments for all strategic and national projects that are authorised to proceed. There are about 100 SDD projects but only 5 are at strategic level (also known at Change Board level).
5.2 KK explained that theoretically SDD should have knowledge of all projects planned or ongoing within the service but this isn’t always the case.
5.3 MS thinks that the comprehensive list will hopefully make people think of the EAG as a scrutiny body and support mechanism. If any of the members become involved in any projects between meetings can they let the rest of the know and provide updates.
5.4 KK stated that this is the first time the EAG have had sight of future projects by showing everything in planning. MS asked if more detail could be added to some of the entries like an explanation of who or what is the Carloway Review.
Action Point 13 - Standing item on future agendas is for members to identify which projects they wish to become involved in.
Action Point 14 – MS would like every EAG member to pick at least one project and become involved in it. Feedback is to be sent to KK for onward distribution.
6. Community Newsletter – workstream from Implementation Project.
This issue has been covered at Item 3.5.
7. AOCB
7.1 Future dates for EAG meetings. SA queried why meeting dates had changed from Wednesdays to Thursdays as she had been unable to make some meetings due to the change. For example she already has a teaching commitment for the November 2011 meeting and cannot attend. KK explained that during 2011 there had been a recurring clash with Wednesday EAG meetings and meetings of the Area Fiscals Group which Morag McLaughlin, the previous COPFS Diversity Champion was required to attend. However, the Area Fiscals group no longer met on Wednesdays so there was no reason for the meetings to remain on Thursdays and could return to their traditional Wednesday schedule.
Action Point 15 – KK will liaise with RMcQ and MS on dates they are both free and set up a year’s worth of EAG meetings.
7.2 Due to the reduced number of members that had been able to attend the last few EAG meetings, MS did an attendance review stretching back to 2009. Some members have attended fewer than 50% of meetings over the past two years. MS plans to write to every member to discuss their attendance at meetings and how their presence could be improved.
Action Point 16 – KK to send EAG member job description and remit to MS.
8. Date and Venue for next meeting
The venue for the next meeting will be somewhere in Paisley. The date will be Thurs 10th November, starting at 10am. There will be a community engagement event in the afternoon.