���˿���

Thank you for that feedback. I refer you back to the comments that were made about virtual hearings and the lack of communication. It is important that account is taken of that and of the gravity of appearing in the High Court. The discussion about changes to the justice system will rumble on.

On a completely separate issue, I have a question for Police Scotland about the submission—

We were, thank you. Your feedback is noted.

I have a question on prisons, but it might be better for me to ask it as a supplementary in order to allow other members to come in.

I have three separate lines of questioning. I will throw them out, and I ask you to try to keep your responses as condensed as possible so that we can get through all three topics. The first topic is the temporary Covid measures that were introduced by Government. We all appreciate and understand that they were a reaction to the circumstance that we were in, which was—to use an overused word—unprecedented.

I have read the submissions, and those from the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland raise issues about modifications that you believe should end when the public health emergency ends. The comments relate specifically to virtual hearings and the use of so-called virtual or digital justice. The Faculty of Advocates says:

“Calling virtual hearings ‘digital justice’ is only justified if we continue to prioritise justice ahead of convenience.”

It goes on to say:

“The boldness of the plan ... to double High Court trial frequency is likely to expose further the depleted defence resources.”

What concerns do you have about some of the temporary measures that you think may end up becoming permanent? What are you calling for the Government to cease requiring as soon as is practicably possible? The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service might then wish to respond to any criticisms or concerns that are raised.

You have made your point eloquently and your submission speaks for itself.

Mr Dalling, do you have any comment? In your written submission, you say that now

“is not the time to fundamentally change the Scottish criminal justice system without robust consultation and research”.

Are you aligned with the view of the Faculty of Advocates on the temporary measures and their possible permanency?

That was a very helpful intervention. I thank Ms Wallace and commend the work of Victim Support Scotland. We have all dealt with casework in which Victim Support Scotland has played an integral role in supporting constituents. I know that it has been an incredibly difficult time. The statistics on interventions that you have had to deal with are very worrying. Perhaps we will hear about that from Mr Maybee, as well.

There is a submission from the Scottish Police Federation in our papers for today’s evidence session. I will not comment on its content or agree or disagree with what it says, but I would like to give Police Scotland the opportunity to respond to it. It contains a relatively harsh critique of Police Scotland. It says:

“The internal bureaucracy and turgid decision making meant”

that Police Scotland

“was on the back foot”

during the pandemic. It says that the

“command and control structure was often found out to have little or no control”;

that

“police officers have throughout this pandemic felt neglected and unsupported by Government”;

and that that

“abandonment should not be underestimated.”

Does Police Scotland have a response to those concerns?

Of course.

Thank you—that is helpful.

The problem, however, is that drugs are getting into the prison. We are not talking about wider society; we are talking about high volumes of dangerous drugs getting into prisons in the first place, and they are not being stopped. Surely that is an area of policy that we can address now. We do not need legislative change to deal with that. Of course you will have support from Parliament to address the issue. There are people dying of drug overdoses in our prisons, and there are people entering the system without addictions and leaving it with them. That sounds utterly bizarre to us.

Perhaps linked to that is the issue of suicide in prisons. The suicide rate in Scottish prisons is around 125 per 100,000—or it was last time I checked. That is around 10 times the average in wider society, so there are clearly issues around mental health in prisons and the safety of prisoners, given the context of the serious organised crime activity that is taking place in our prisons and some of the issues that have rightly been raised in the media in recent weeks. How safe are prisoners in our prisons? Are they safe enough? Is there more that can be done? What are we doing to address that shocking statistic of suicide in prison, especially among the women’s population, where the level is even higher?

If the Scottish Government—this is a further technical matter—was not happy with either the draft wording of the code of conduct or what UK ministers proposed, would you amend the legislative consent motion, or have it agreed to as drafted but subsequently issue another one? I am sorry—I am still a bit confused as to the process.

Thank you for the opening statement. The committee papers cover the topic extensively.

My first question is perhaps not for the cabinet secretary, as it is a technical question about the draft legislative consent motion. I welcome the fact that that agrees to the relevant provisions of the UK bill. Cabinet secretary, did you say that the Scottish Government does not consent to, or does not agree with consent being given to, the provisions on the extraction of data from digital devices? How does that relate to the draft motion? The motion agrees to the provisions in the UK bill—there is nothing in it that disagrees with or does not consent to anything. What would be the legislative process by which the Scottish Government would pursue not granting consent?