Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will follow on from that and try to get my head around what the LCM is supposed to be doing.

I note that the provision applies where the device owner has given agreement, so that bit does not seem to be contentious. I understand that a lot of cases now involve the extraction of data from mobile devices, so it is quite a big issue, and the framework is about ensuring that the police and other agencies do that within the statutory legal framework and not just on the basis of common law. If the Scottish Government’s position is just to be cautious about that, because it will be a big issue, I concur that it seems reasonable that you want to see the finalised code of practice before giving consent.

I just want to make sure that my basic understanding of the LCM is correct, which is that the provision applies when the owner has already given consent. There are other provisions, such as when the device owner is incapacitated or is a child, but, in the main, the provision applies to the device owner.

I was pondering the same point. It would be useful to know why the fee has gone up—maybe it is related to the pandemic. It is also backdated to 30 June. It would be helpful to know why we are being asked to agree to that.

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.

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.

My husband was formerly a member of the criminal bar, but he is no longer practising. I do not think that that is a relevant interest, but I would like to declare it.