Seòmar agus comataidhean

So you have the money, but it takes three to four years to design and build a prison.

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.

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

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.

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.