���˿���

In that case, I put the same question about the role of the defence and the depletion of talent to Ken Dalling.

Good morning. As my colleagues have done, I put on record my commendation of all the services and organisations for their incredibly hard work in getting through the crisis.

I found the submission from the Faculty of Advocates helpful in setting out and identifying what practitioners thought would be helpful to keep and what would not be helpful to keep. That will be a central issue for the committee as we examine how to go forward. In the section about the backlog of trials, the faculty talks about the role of the defence and how the “depletion of talent” might impact on what seems to be good progress in dealing with the backlog of trials. Would Tony Lenehan like to expand on that?

So, the Faculty of Advocates—

If you have followed my lines of questioning, you will know that I have always made it clear that I am interested in fairness to the accused. That is why I was interested in the role of the defence.

I have other questions about prisons and the police, but I will wait to see whether there is time for those at the end of this session.

Sorry, but I just want to be clear on that point. I appreciate that, up until this point, the approach that has been taken has been necessary. However, the extension might still exist in the future—it might be put into legislation so that it becomes permanent. Are you saying that the Faculty of Advocates does not have any concerns about the remand figures or about the impact on witnesses should the time limits be further extended?

My next question, which follows on from that, is probably best addressed to Tony Lenehan and Eric McQueen. Do you have any concerns about the extension to time bars to account for the Covid period? I have put on record my concerns about that. I appreciate that, during the crisis, the initial extension was necessary. However, that has meant that there have been significant delays to trials. The remand figures in Scotland have been commented on internationally as being unacceptably high. I am sure that Kate Wallace of Victim Support Scotland would point out that the measure has also had an added impact on victims.

Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary and minister. I particularly welcome the minister’s comments about the work that is being done relating to women and girls.

My first question is a continuation of Jamie Greene’s line of questioning and what the cabinet secretary had to say about the “Scandal of Remand in Scotland”, as the Howard League Scotland described it in the title of its report. According to the Howard League, remand affects women as well as men in prison, and the majority are not being convicted, so it is right that that will be a priority. It was helpful that Neil Rennick gave us an indication of what the issue is, because I was going to ask why sheriffs are remanding so many people, many of whom are not convicted. It is useful to know that it seems to be a legislation issue. I have read the Howard League’s briefing on that. I am clear that the sheriff is required to establish whether there is substantial risk and that, if there is, they must refuse bail. I take it that that is the area that the Government will look at for reform.

I very much welcome that.

I want to ask about the conditions of remand prisoners—in fact, probably, when I think about it, the conditions of all prisoners. Does the cabinet secretary agree that spending 23 hours in a cell is completely unacceptable? I know that you will say that there are lots of reasons for that, but I hope that you agree that it is unacceptable that prisoners—in particular, remand prisoners—are not getting access to fresh air. I have also heard about many cases—as have others—of prisoners not getting proper national health service or mental health support, because when they are detained it is not easy to complain.

Does the cabinet secretary think that radical reform is needed to make sure that we are heading in the right direction to ensure basic human rights in the conditions of remand prisoners and prisoners generally? I represent Glasgow and have always wondered why we did not go for a remand prison as one of the new prisons, because we could probably have had a real go at reform. However, that never happened.

My central question is this: does the cabinet secretary agree that we need to radically overhaul, over time, conditions for prisoners?

This will be my last question. I know that others are interested in this matter: the malicious prosecution of individuals connected with Rangers Football Club. I am aware that you are restricted in what you can say to the committee.

I hope that you agree—I see no reason why you would not—that it is of serious concern to Scotland’s criminal justice system that the Lord Advocate had to apologise for something so fundamental. The matter is obviously the subject of legal action, so I appreciate that you are restricted in what you can say, but has there been any investigation of how the decision came about? Who made the decision? At what level was it made? Was it made by, for example, the Lord Advocate’s team in the Crown Office? Everyone knows that the Lord Advocate signs off everything, but she does not make every decision. Someone else obviously made the decision, and whoever that was has brought into question the Scottish criminal justice system, so it is a very serious matter. With the caveat that I have given, what can you say about how that happened? It would be good to get a response at some point.

I totally acknowledge that, but I would like to think that ministers are very concerned about the issue—I am sure that you are. It is not simply a matter for the Lord Advocate. If our criminal justice system is called into question because our prosecution service has had to put its hands up, I would like to think that ministers would think that they have a role in ensuring that that can never happen again.