Seòmar agus comataidhean

The bill does not deal with sentencing policy. It is a response to the experience of victims in the criminal justice system. I understand perfectly the point that Ms Dowey makes, but we also know from victims, particularly from the personal testimony of victims who have been through the system, that their experience is sometimes as important as the outcome. A system that retraumatises victims is not in the interests of justice or access to justice, and it will not encourage or support victims to come forward. However, as it stands, the bill makes no reference to sentencing policy.

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.

That touches on the point that the commissioner will not have the power to intervene on individual cases. They can, of course, signpost and engage with victims and witnesses, either individually or collectively. The purpose of a commissioner is to hold the justice system collectively to account. We would expect them to work very closely and carefully with other commissioners where we do not want duplication—around children would be the obvious example. The commissioner’s role is to identify and influence system-wide change. It is more about holding the system to account, therefore avoiding duplication with the roles that other organisations fulfil.

Ms Mackay is right to say that the purpose of part 3 of the bill is to increase the safeguards for vulnerable parties and witnesses in civil cases, extending the use of special measures and, in essence, protecting people who have suffered abuse from being cross-examined by the accused abuser. That speaks to all the evidence that we have heard, over a number of years, that people often feel less protected in the civil system—in particular, in family cases and other civil procedures when domestic violence can be a feature. The extension of the special measures in the bill is an important and significant step forward. It moves on from other comparatively recent legislation, in which special measures were enabled for a specific selection of family cases, and applies best practice across the civil system.