Seòmar agus comataidhean

I put the same question to Police Scotland. I take on board the point that local authorities might be better placed to answer this but, in Police Scotland’s experience, is the resource being put in place, given that this is a significant shift in policy?

I have a question about legislation, but I am not sure whether it is appropriate to ask it at this point.

My next question is about the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The witnesses have made clear that wider social and economic issues are primary drivers of the drug problem, so the legislative framework around it is exceptionally important. People have talked about safe consumption rooms, for example, and a debate is going on about the legal framework around the issue.

In relation to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, what kind of changes are the witnesses looking for in the legislative framework? What do they believe can be done in the current legislation? Do they argue for the devolution of drugs policy and, if so, what real changes are they looking for? I will ask some of the campaigners first. Could Peter Krykant briefly outline where he thinks we need to move in relation to the legislative framework around drugs?

I will put the same question to David Liddell. Do you agree with Peter Krykant?

My question might also be one that the witnesses feel that they are not best placed to answer. We have heard that there has been a significant increase in deferral of prosecution; indeed, as you probably know, the Lord Advocate came to Parliament fairly recently to announce a significant policy shift in relation to class A possession. Is there evidence that the resource is being put in place to ensure that we can adequately deal with that change in policy? Is there any information about the increases that we are likely to see in deferral of prosecution as a result of that policy shift, which has obviously been happening over a long period of time?

I direct those questions to the Crown Office witness. It might be that Mr McGeehan can make some comments, but will feel that the Crown Office is not best placed to give a definitive answer.

Given the current crisis, are you expanding the Public Defence Solicitors Office? Are you recruiting? How does the pay compare with the pay for the types of solicitors in private practice to whom Ian Moir referred?

My question is to Julia McPartlin and Ian Moir. Exactly what level of increase are you suggesting there needs to be in legal aid fees? Are you suggesting that the restructuring of legal aid to encourage pleas at an early stage would be sufficient to enable better recruitment for criminal defence agents or are you suggesting a percentage increase across the board on criminal legal aid rates? What kind of percentage is necessary now to enable you to recruit into the sector?

What role might the Public Defence Solicitors Office play in a reformed legal aid system? What would the balance be between private practice and public sector provision through the PDSO?

With regard to the current crisis, is there a role for the PDSO, especially in busy courts? It may well be that, because of waiting times and so on, there are more efficient ways to deal with the problem and to ensure in the way that things are organised that solicitors are actually addressing the tasks that need done. I want to ask Colin Lancaster about that. Is there realistically a greater role for the PDSO to play in the immediate future?

I ask Ian Moir to come in on that. What would make a difference? There could be an increase but it might not be sufficient for what you are arguing for. What does the Government need to do?

So you are saying that to maintain your business model and recruit lawyers you need to go back to 1999 levels in the immediate future. I am not talking about the long-term structure—I am talking about what needs to be done now to ensure that we do not have a crisis this winter.