���˿���

Good morning, convener. I thank the committee’s clerk, Sam Currie, for the support that she is giving us as we try to set up the group. I hope that the committee will be satisfied with the proposal.

The proposed CPG is probably the first group of its kind that does not overlap with anything else. We have already done quite a bit of work. Having run informal meetings with an amazing group of people who believe that there are credible health benefits to the use of cannabis, I thought that there would be interest in a formal cross-party group.

The group seeks to understand better the benefits of medicinal cannabis and to recognise case studies that indicate its positive impact on patients who suffer from a variety of conditions. It also seeks to support patients’ rights to access the medicine.

The committee might be familiar with some high-profile cases, such as that of young Cole, who cannot get access to prescribed Bedrolite on the national health service and whose family has to pay for it privately. Taking that medicine has led to an incredible reduction in Cole’s convulsions. In fact, he has hardly had any episodes since he began taking it.

For some patients, medicinal cannabis is absolutely life changing. We have heard informal evidence from people who speak to the fact that some serious health conditions have simply been cleared up by the use of certain types of cannabis product. Therefore, it is in the public interest that we examine the evidence-based research and seek to investigate case studies for people with chronic illnesses who would benefit from medicinal cannabis.

The topics that we anticipate discussing include: access to Bedrolite and other cannabis-based drugs that have a high cost to bring into the country, which is more difficult because of Brexit; a card, known as med can, that the state of Colorado in the US provides for medical cannabis users to show that their use is for health needs; and the human right of patients to access medicinal cannabis versus the public health issue. I feel strongly that, if patients feel that it is beneficial to them, they should not be prevented from using a cannabis product—of which there are many—because of any laws against or judgments about people using such products.

Members might ask why I set up the group. My father, who had severe arthritis, used to ask me whether, if we ever legalised cannabis, I would be the first person to get him some so that he could alleviate his pain and suffering. He believed that it would have done so but, being a law-abiding person, he sadly passed five years ago without getting the chance to find out.

Many people believe that medicinal cannabis will alleviate conditions such as arthritis. That is what drove me to do the work to reduce stigma using the evidence base and working with the national health service. We have a good relationship with the NHS. There is some political resistance to the work, but there is also some interest in it.

We also want to explore whether there should be legislation on cannabis growers. Committee members have probably noticed that a lot more people take cannabis tablets or other cannabis products for health reasons. It is becoming big business and we want to ensure that it is not something that only big business can control. That is why we are interested in cannabis growing.

Those are our main purposes. Rona Mackay has agreed to co-convene the group. Miles Briggs, who has done a huge amount of work on the matter as well, and Oliver Mundell are our Conservative members. Monica Lennon, who has been part of the informal group, Paul Sweeney and Pam Duncan-Glancy have also signed up already. Our members include a number of individuals—they are mentioned in your papers—and organisations, such as the Scottish patient subgroup of Patient-Led Engagement for Access, the Scottish cannabis consortium and the Multiple Sclerosis Society Scotland. I expect a lot more interest if the committee approves our application.

Does that not happen?

Perhaps I should pursue the issue a wee bit further another time, because there are a lot of different priorities around decarbonising the estate. I have experienced the poor estate on my patch in Glasgow. I am glad that you mentioned visibility, because from the public’s point of view, a police office needs to be quite different from any other environment, so visibility is important. It should not be completely driven by best value because it is a distinct service.

You will have heard some of the evidence that the committee has taken. I will summarise what has interested me about the evidence that we have taken. We heard criminal lawyers and the Faculty of Advocates talk about the fee structure. The Faculty of Advocates said that it has upped the average number of daily cases from 12 to 20, but it still thinks that there will be a shortage of defence lawyers in the system.

We also heard a lot about the job of a defence solicitor. There is an important point to address here about the work-life balance of defence solicitors. They have to go to the police station late at night. The vulnerability of many of the clients of defence solicitors must be acknowledged, too. Do you agree that, as part of any changes to the system, there needs to be acknowledgement of the fact that being a defence solicitor brings with it all those things? Whether a defence solicitor works for the PDSO service or has their own firm, the job is probably much the same—they deal with vulnerable people in the criminal justice system who want a choice of lawyer and who want to be properly represented to give themselves the best chance of having their case put. Most ordinary people probably do not appreciate the hours that defence solicitors work. Do you agree that such acknowledgement is required?

My next question is one that the Scottish Police Federation has posed. It is about public confidence and the pressures on the police. According to the SPF,

“police officers across Scotland have almost 50,000 rest days due to be re-rostered as a consequence of operational demands outstripping available resources. Beyond that … an additional … 100,000 … days have already been re-rostered to future dates.”

The obvious question is, how long can we keep doing that for? Is the authority asking the Scottish Government to programme that in? Through the pandemic, police officers have had to put public policing first, which builds up roster days. I would have thought that it would be grossly unfair not to recognise that that is an additional pressure on the policing budget. What is your ask of the Scottish Government in relation to that?

No, my question is on something else.

That was a really helpful answer.

I have a very quick question, the answer to which will, I hope, be short. You will have heard—I think that you agree, although you can correct me if not—that fixing the early plea aspect of the fees structure might be helpful. Could you put your views on that on the record? Until we find alternatives and discuss and agree on some of what you have mentioned, should there be, in the short term, an immediate uplift in fees, in addition to what has happened, in order to ensure that we continue to provide an adequate service overall for people who seek to be defended in the criminal justice system?

Good morning. I want to follow up on the question that the convener put to you on the issue of cybercrime, which, according to the figures, has doubled in the past few years, so it is quite a significant issue for policing.

You said to the convener that you are considering the recruitment of civilian officers. Whose decision is that? The idea of recruiting more civilians is one that I have heard before. Opinion is divided on where the line should be when it comes to having people other than police officers do the job. Is that a decision for the SPA to make or is it one for Police Scotland? Can you say anything about which jobs would be civilianised?

This question is probably about the capital budget, but the witnesses can tell me if that is right. It is perhaps for Mr Brown—but, again, you can tell me.

The Scottish Police Federation gave evidence about the co-location of police services. Its concern is about the condition of the police estate, and I am sure that it is a fair concern. It is saying that in such cases, Police Scotland has been

“the tenant and not the landlord”

and that there would be increased revenue pressure in the long run if there was more co-location of services. The SPF says:

“This tends to suggest that desperation, rather than suitability is the key driver.”

Is it a principle of the SPA or Police Scotland to seek co-location, or is it a measure of last resort? Obviously, there is an immediate pressure, but, looking to the future, I would not have thought that it would be ideal to co-locate when you are sharing a building with completely different services. That is my concern—I have been controversial in the past, I have to say.

My question is on a different subject. Is that okay?