Seòmar agus comataidhean

The current approach is more about practice and protocol and is non-statutory. Right now, the mainstream press abide by and adhere to what is a non-statutory approach, and they need to be commended for doing so, but we are now in the world of social media, with its massive reach and a phenomenal number of contributors who, at the click of a button, can share all sorts of information. Fundamentally, we want more clarity and certainty for complainers, so that they have the confidence to report and the automatic assurance that their privacy and dignity will be protected.

Mr Swinney and other members are correct to encapsulate what Lady Dorrian expressed, which is that the adoption of trauma-informed practices is absolutely central to how we can improve the experience of complainers. The bill seeks to do that in a number of ways. Mr Swinney quoted section 43. The bill creates a statutory definition of trauma-informed practice; it requires justice agencies to have regard to trauma-informed practices in their work with victims and witnesses; and it empowers the courts to set rules and procedures for trauma-informed practice in relation to criminal and civil business. The practical application of that means that trauma-informed practice must be taken into account when court business is scheduled.

With the sexual offences court, there is a move to a presumption that prerecorded evidence will be used. Obviously, there is some legislation on virtual trials at the moment. To get to the heart of the matter and improve people’s experience and the efficiency of the system, rather than tweaking it around the edges, the sexual offences court offers us an unrivalled opportunity to embed expertise and to take what Lady Dorrian described as a “clean sheet” approach, instead of guddling about in the existing system, which is not satisfactory for many complainers and which retraumatises complainers. We are starting with a clean sheet, looking at what we need to do differently and building a new system from the ground up.

Right now, I do, but, of course, the purpose of scrutiny is to shine a light on areas that can be improved or to unravel any knots that exist in legislation. I am very undefensive about such things. The main priority between now and the passing of the bill is to ensure that we have the best legislation possible. I am sure that, as we embark on this journey, we all want to work together to improve the bill.

The rationale for having a specialist sexual offences court is also to improve the efficiency of the process, because we know that delays can have a traumatic impact. A range of operational matters will need to be addressed—regarding independent legal representation, for example—in order to ensure that people can access their rights timeously without additional delays.

There is a lot of detail underpinning the bill that is still to be worked through, but one of the purposes of a sexual offences court is to improve efficiency, and that was, in many ways, the starting point—or one of the starting points—for Lady Dorrian’s work. Given the increasing volume of cases, how are we going to deal with them more efficiently? That is not just in the interests of the court system; it is fundamentally in the interests of victims.

I do not know whether I have missed out or not addressed anything—perhaps my officials can tell me.

That is why we have to ensure that the bill will deliver on, and will be implemented in accordance with, its aspirations. The devil is always in the detail—it is always about what happens on the ground.

It actually takes them further. It is much more comprehensive.

You must forgive me, Mr Findlay; I am trying to operationalise in my head how that would work in practice.

Yes, that is the recurring cost.

The Government has been engaging with stakeholders on that issue since around 2019. In the consultation responses, there was broad support for a victims and witnesses commissioner. Clearly, there is a demand for it from victims and victims organisations, although I hasten to add that we would not expect a unanimity of views. The purpose of that provision is to establish an independent statutory commissioner who would be accountable to the Parliament and whose role would complement, rather than duplicate, that of victims organisations, for example.

You mentioned the issue of funding. Currently, we invest heavily in victims organisations. We have allocated £48 million to the victim-centred approach fund and £19 million to the equally safe fund. The cost of establishing a victims and witnesses commissioner is laid out in the bill’s financial memorandum. No financial cost is insignificant, but the costs associated with that proposal are far less substantial than the amount that we are currently investing and will continue to invest in victims organisations.

Lady Dorrian’s review was silent on that. The cross-sectoral working group that picked up the work following her review opted for the position, which is also the Government’s current position, that it would be mandatory for the accused in the relevant cases to participate in the pilot. In the same way, when looking at how the justice system operates more broadly, complainers or the accused do not decide which court, at which level or which procedure would be used for their case—that is mandatory. The other practical aspect is that, where we seek the Parliament’s consent to introduce regulation to have a time-limited pilot, any pilot will require a certain number of cases if it is to be effective, particularly if it is to be time-limited.

We have not considered it or consulted on it. It was not part of the Lady Dorrian review or of any of the recommendations that flowed from that, and we have not explored in any way the unintended consequences of such an extension to anonymity.

One of the advantages of removing the not proven verdict is that, in a two-verdict system, people are either guilty or not guilty, and if someone is found to be not guilty, that is clear and unambiguous.