³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Yes.

With regard to the views or concerns that have been expressed regarding the Lord Justice General’s power to remove judges, we have listened carefully and are looking at potential amendments so that the situation is clear and unambiguous. There is an arrangement for the appointment and removal of temporary judges, and it might be that we need to make things clear in the bill by introducing provisions that mirror those arrangements.

On sentencing powers, I am firmly of the view that the sexual offences court should have unlimited sentencing powers. That is a departure from the work that was undertaken in the original review. We should absolutely guard against any perception that the court is a downgrade; it is a court with status that should have the same powers as the High Court, given the gravity of some of the offences that it will be dealing with.

It will be transformative. You will have heard lots of evidence about the opportunities when you build something from the ground up. The founding principle of the court is to improve the experience of complainers. There is broad support for the establishment of a court with national jurisdiction and the ability to operate in around 40 venues across the country, and it is within the gift of us all to shape how the new court is seen.

In respect of resources, the financial memorandum outlines set-up and on-going costs. Inevitably, there will be costs, and we will look at that issue constantly from now until implementation because, as we know, costs can change. In the longer term, there are potential savings to be had with the more efficient use of court resources. Indeed, we have already seen in other courts in the system the benefits of really good judicial case management.

What we are talking about is around 700 cases that are currently in our system—both sheriff and jury cases and solemn cases in the High Court—and the issue is also the more effective management of those cases, which was at the heart of Lady Dorrian’s review. Given that we are now dealing with a huge increase in those cases compared with 10 years ago, thought needed to be given to the efficient case management of those particularly difficult cases in the interests of serving justice and in the interests of complainers.

We have a stage 2 timetable and a stage 3 timetable that we will all have to adhere to.

In exercising the right to reply to the preamble to Mr Findlay’s question, I think that I have laid out today that we have lots of evidence. We have also laid out some ethical and legal considerations about the type of evidence that can be gathered and how it can be gathered. I accept the argument that there is always a case for seeking more evidence, but we also have to acknowledge that there can be other limits and that we could continue to seek evidence for ever and a day without ever implementing any of it. I do accept, however, that, as Ms Clark has pointed out, there is a balance to be struck.

On the very important question about trauma-informed practice, there is a difference between the definitions that are required in practice and what has to be expressed in the context of the law. Let me reassure Mr Findlay that my door is never closed and that we continue to engage with a large number of stakeholders—

I know that you are impatient.

My apologies, Ms McNeill. I think that I have understood your question from the wrong angle. The Government did not want solicitor advocates or counsel to be compelled to represent cases that they would not normally be involved in. There is an underlying issue of ensuring that appropriate legal aid is available.

I accept that the law needs to be as unambiguous and clear as possible. There is always a distinction between what is in the black letter of the law and what might follow through further regulation or guidance. There is a need for a clear pathway and for clarity and mutual understanding with regards to what is and is not on the record. We will seek to give comfort to members in that regard as we proceed with stages 2 and 3.

Lisa McCloy, would you like to add anything else?

The fabric of the court estate is a fundamental issue. The Government is committed to continuing to make improvements to the court estate. Perhaps Ms Dowey is aware that, in the draft budget, there is not only a 9.5 per cent increase in resource funding for courts but a capital funding increase of 28 per cent. That is a significant uplift, in recognition of the need to continue to invest in the fabric of our buildings to ensure that all the correct arrangements are made for the safety, security and wellbeing of victims and witnesses.

That is possible, but the bill includes clear duties on participants and agents across the justice system. Those who participate in the sexual offences court will have to have undergone trauma-informed training. It is not for me to define the content and the nature of the courses; that would be a matter for the sexual offences court. The view might be that additional training is required.

I am very pleased to say that the draft budget that is being considered by the Parliament includes a proposition for a sizeable uplift of 11.66 per cent for the Crown Office, which equates to £21.2 million. There has been in excess of a 50 per cent increase in resources for the Crown Office since the start of the previous parliamentary session. More recent figures show that, in 2019-20, the resource input into the Crown Office was £113 million. In the draft budget, the amount is now £203 million, so that is a sizeable increase.

The Crown Office negotiates, as I do, with the finance secretary every year on the budget. In the past, the Crown Office has benefited from significant additional investment—particularly resource funding, but also capital funding and some non-cash support. Overall, total investment has gone from nearly £121 million in 2019-20 to £223 million in this year’s draft budget.