 We have no apologies. Traffing of item 1 is a decision on taking business in private and members content to take item 6 on the committee's work program in private. Yes. Agenda item 2 is an evidence session on an affirmative instrument, the share of court simple procedure limits on awards of expenses, amendment order 2019 draft. I welcome Ash Denham, minister for community safety and her officials, Walter Drummond Murray, courts and tribunal policy officer and Samantha Roar, director of legal services with the Scottish Government. Agenda item 2 is a transfer member to put questions to ministers and her officials, seeking clarification on the instruments before we formally dispose of it. I refer members to paper 1, which is a note by the clerk. Minister, do you wish to make an opening statement? I have a very brief one if that is okay with the committee. The expenses order that has been laid supports the operation of the new simple procedure that was partially introduced on 28 November 2016. For low value claims, it has been recognised at the cost of obtaining legal representation that will often be disproportionate to the sum sued for. It is therefore unreasonable to expose litigants to those types of low value cases to uncertain expenses in the event that they are the unsuccessful party. For cases with a value of under £3,000, the share of court simple procedure limits on award of expenses order 2016, restricting the recoverability of expenses in small claims by reference to the monetary value of the claim. The 2019 order that has been laid makes minor amendments to the 2016 order so that for claims with a value of under £300, no claim for expenses can be made. This is a small change from the £200 that it is currently set at. The rationale for this change is to ensure continuing alignment with the court fees system, which from 1 April 2019 will amend the level of the claim that attracts the minimal court fee of £19 from £200 to £300. The committee will recall considering the relevant share of court fees order this time last year. The intention of this alignment is to ensure that low value litigation is not rendered prohibitive either by the court fee or the possibility of an award of expenses. Do you have any questions or comments? No? Yes. Sorry, Liam. Just very briefly, just for interest minister, where did the 300 come from? I know that you have aligned it to the court fee system, but why 300, I mean from 200? It's just in order. The simple procedure is just meant to be much easier for people so that they can, so we just thought to bring it into line, so just to raise it slightly, so that it would be a more appropriate figure. Any other questions? No? Okay. That being the case, item 3 is formal consideration of the motion in relation to the affirmative instrument. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has considered and reported on the instrument and has no comments on it. The motion is 1.5526 that the Justice Committee recommends that the share of court simple procedure limits on award of expenses amendment order 2019 draft be approved. Minister to move the motion? Moved. Okay. Do members have any comments? No. In that case, I put the question, is the motion 1.526 in the name of Ash Denin to be approved? Are we agreed? It is. It is great. That concludes consideration of the instrument. The committee's report will note and confirm the outcome of the debate. Are members content to agree to delegate authority to me's convener to clear the final draft report? Great. Alex, I suspend briefly to allow the officials supporting the minister to change places. Agenda item 4 is an evidence session on a affirmative instrument on the drug driving special limit Scotland regulations 2019 draft. Joining the minister is Philip Lamont, criminal justice division and Louise Miller, director for legal services with the Scottish Government. Again, this is a chance for members to put to the ministers and their officials any points of clarification they may see on the instrument before we formally dispose of it. I refer members to paper 2, which is a note by the clerk in paper 3, which is private paper, and invite the minister to make an opening statement. The drug driving regulations that are being considered this morning are an important step forward in seeking to improve road safety in Scotland. The regulations provide for the different drug types that will be included in the new offence and the limits associated with each of those drug types. The approach adopted with the regulations follows consideration of the Scottish results of a UK-wide consultation, which found general support for the limits proposed. The implementation of the new offence will have an effect on various agencies within our justice system, including Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority. In particular, the Scottish Police Authority will be required to provide forensic testing of blood taken from those suspected of committing the new offence to assess which drug types and at what levels are in a person's blood. As part of consideration of what drug types should be included within the new offence, the SPA carried out an analysis of what drug types were identified amongst drivers caught over a six-month period—this was from July to December 2017—under the existing driving while impaired through drugs offence. That analysis revealed that of the 261 drug driving impairment cases during that period, just over half—51 per cent—involved cannabis, just under half—49 per cent—involved diazepam, and just over a quarter—28 per cent—involved cocaine. Those drug types are included in the 17 drug types that are covered by the new offence, and overall, 95 per cent of the impairment cases revealed the presence of at least one of the drug types included within the new offence. Each of those cases either represented where a drug type included within the new offence was the only drug type identified, or it was identified in combination with other drug types, including drug types that are not included within the new offence. The analysis suggests that the list of 17 drug types provided for in the new offence provides very good coverage of the drug types that are most commonly used in Scotland by those currently being caught driving while impaired through drugs. Although 95 per cent of all cases that were tested contained at least one drug type included within the new offence, it should be noted that only 43 per cent of samples had one or more drug type included within the new offence that was over the limit associated with each drug type. That indicates that there will be a continuing need to consider prosecution for drivers who have drugs within their system under the existing driving while impaired through drugs offence in those cases. That offence is, of course, unaffected by those regulations. What the analysis also reveals is that the extent of poly drug use in Scotland, with approximately 45 per cent of all impairment offences, is showing four or more drugs within a person's system. That clearly suggests that where a drug type may have been taken that is not on the list of 17, it is very often being taken in combination with a drug that is on the list. That means that it would be caught by the new offence if the drug type limit has been exceeded for the drug type in question. On this basis, and following consideration of the Scottish views offered to the 2013 consultation, we consider it appropriate to proceed with the introduction of the limits in Scotland, based on the 17 drug types and associated limits already used in England in Wales. If Parliament approves those regulations, Scotland will have the toughest criminal law approach on drink and drug driving in the UK, with the lowest drink driving limit as well as robust drug driving limits through this new offence. We hope that the new offence will act as a clear deterrent to those who may wish to take drugs and drive. I am happy to take any questions, convener. I will open up the questions before I do. Can I ask you perhaps, minister, has any consideration been given to the type of device that the Scottish Government is thinking of deploying, given that at present there has been some concern or dissatisfaction that the device used south of the border could only identify two types of drug, as opposed to the device that would detect all the banned drugs? I am sure that the committee will be aware that the testing device that is used at the roadside currently in England in Wales, you will understand that ultimately the decision for what type of device is used by Police Scotland is an operational decision that is a matter for them, but it is safe to say that it is very likely that device or something very similar to that is what will end up being used in Scotland. I do not know if my official would like to add anything to that. In terms of other drug types being capable of being detected using screening devices, to a certain extent we would be reliant on the UK Government, because those devices need to be what is called type approved, so there are only two devices or one device that is type approved for cannabis and cocaine. Type approval is a means of ensuring the validity and robustness of the testing procedure. Police Scotland and Police forces in England and Wales would not want to use any devices that were not type approved, so the UK Government would need to type approve other devices, and as of today, no other devices are type approved other than for cannabis and cocaine. Does that severely limit the amount of people who might be under the 17 or so drugs that have been identified as 17? Is it going to be a phased approach then, gradually bringing it in and then hoping to increase the amount that will be detected? It might be helpful to explain that there are the roadside devices of which is cannabis and cocaine, but in terms of forensic testing—in other words, the testing that is done by the Scottish Police Authority, which produces the evidence that will be used in criminal cases—that is separate and that will cover all 17. That is just that the Police Scotland side, the devices that they have are based on cannabis and cocaine. What Police Scotland will likely do, but it is a matter for them, is continue to use field impairment tests to detect if they think that someone has taken drugs. If they have enough suspicion to take them back to the police station, there will be a process by which a blood test is taken and then the full analysis will be done of that person's blood. That is the evidence that is used in court and that will be capable of testing for all 17 drug types. That is helpful. John Finnie, followed by Liam McArthur and Daniel Johnson. Thank you for me, and perhaps to Mr Lamont, because it is a follow-on from what he said. I am pleased that the minister referred to the long-standing legislation about impairment through the drinker or drugs. I am trying to understand, and that will remain on the statute book. In our brief, we have the quote that the minister talked about, the 95 per cent, and then goes on to say that it should be noted that only 43 per cent of those samples was over the limit associated with that drug type use. That quote, which the minister used, which is in our brief there too, indicates the continuing need to use. How does that happen? Say, for instance, that there is a lot of case law around this, that a driver is tested, it is not believed that the driving is impaired, they happen to have been stopped in a line of vehicles that have been stopped, the driving isn't impaired. How can you move from one to another? There are not going to be difficulties with that. If the rationale for undertaking the test in the first place was not that you believed that the ability to drive a driven impaired through the consumption of drugs, and that does not exceed that test, if you follow what I mean, how then do you move to the follow-back position? One way that might work might happen is, first of all, the police, as you say, cannot just stop someone and test them, they have to have, maybe they have been involved in an accident, or they have received a report that someone has been driving after taking drugs, or indeed they may have been driving in an erratic way, but once they stop someone, they may, for example, if they do the fuelled impairment test, which may give them enough evidence or suspicion to take them back to the police station and then go through a formal procedure to authorise a blood test, they may also see drugs in a person's car, which might give suspicion that they have taken drugs and drove. The roadside screen devices for cannabis and cocaine are obviously very relevant for those two drugs, but there are other ways in which police will suspect someone who has taken drugs and drove and they will be able to take them back to the police station if there is evidence to suggest that, to then get the blood test, which is the crucial thing that will be used in a criminal case. To be clear, the roadside screen devices are not used as evidence, they are just to give enough suspicion for cannabis and cocaine to take them back to the police station, so it is certainly true that it makes it easier to detect cannabis and cocaine than the other drug types, but they are not the only way in which someone can be taken back to the police station. That is an additional offence that will give the police. I think that it is going to work out that it is going to be easier to get prosecutions because you do not need to prove that level of impairment, so it is an additional offence that should help the police. The question of new psychoactive substances, are you content that they can be picked up by way of the legislation and the existing legislation, and at any time was consideration given to an ability to the police to stop anyone random? Obviously, as is the case in any type of legislation, we will keep this fully under review, and we will look at all the evidence. We will then be able to either adjust the type of drugs that are on the list or adjust the limits that the drugs types are set at. We will review the evidence, and if at any time we feel that the evidence suggests that that needs to be done, that either the types need to be extended or the limits need to be changed, then we can obviously do that by secondary legislation. The question of the police having the ability to stop anyone randomly? Will they still have to feel that someone is driving? They have to have a reason to stop them. It might be helpful to clarify that the law in that area is reserved. What has been devolved in this area is simply the ability to set the limits and specify the drug types. For alcohol limits, that was devolved so that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government could set the alcohol limit. All the other powers associated with the area are reserved, so it would not be within the competence of it. It would be for Westminster to decide whether that was appropriate. Thank you very much. Dementria, on a note, I am just briefly falling from John's question. Just to clarify, are psychoactive drugs not on the list at the moment? They are not on the list. They are not on the list. They are not on the list. Okay. Thank you. Liam McArthur, Daniel Dyn, Liam Kerr. Yeah, I was going to follow up that point as well. Obviously, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has given evidence drawing our attention to the absence of new psychoactive substances from the list. I suspect that, given the rate at which those reformulate and reformulate, it would be difficult to write them into legislation. I suppose that it was slightly surprising from the figures that you were giving earlier about the breakdown of drugs that had been taken in instances where individuals had been stopped, did not include a sizeable proportion of probably a range of legal, so-called legal highs. To what extent has that been factored into the workings in terms of how this legislation is expected to, or these changes to legislation are expected to bite? The reason that has been taken to the 17 drugs as listed is obviously the extent of the research and the analysis that has been done. It is also based on the fact that the legislation has been working in England and Wales for a number of years now. We have been able to look at that for lessons to be learned and to see that it seems to be working quite effectively south of the border. The other thing to note is that it is obviously quite complicated to go to the lab and then test forensically for the 17 types. Obviously, the 17 gives us a very broad coverage, which is the most important thing to note. At this point, we consider that it will give us a very broad coverage of 95 per cent. If we were to extend it, which ultimately we could do, you could put any drug that you wanted to on this list, but every time you do that, it increases complexity. I will let my official explain that point to you a little bit further if you would like. What have been the lessons, in a sense, from England and Wales in relation to the treatment of legalised drugs? What we are told is certainly within a particular demographic. That problem is growing, and in some cases, it is growing exponentially. One would assume that you would then see that played out in relation to the evidence that might be emerging from England and Wales. It is fair to say that the 95 per cent coverage of the existing sample of people caught while driving while impaired. For the 17 drug types, 95 per cent is a very high number. Within those figures, there will be clearly some people who have taken such substances, and it is something that can be kept under review. We will certainly be continuing to work with colleagues in the Scottish Police Authority to analyse the data on the results of their testing to see how prevalent other substances not on the list are so that we can keep it under review to see whether they should be added. In terms of the coverage, we are satisfied that the 95 per cent figure is a robust figure. I want to move on to the issue of public awareness. Obviously, there is an issue for those who are on prescribed medicines that touch on some of those that are listed here. There will be an awareness raising needed there among those who are taking those and those who are prescribing administering them. However, there is also a wider public awareness campaign that we need to be embarked upon. Again, Royal Pharmaceutical Society but others have given evidence of that. Are you able to outline the steps that the Government is going to take directly or through agencies to raise that public awareness about the changes that are being introduced? Yes, you are right to say that there is a role here for medical professionals and pharmacists in making sure that people have the correct information. Those who are on prescription medications will be able to rely on the medical defence as long as they comply with the instructions that are given to them by their medical professional. For that reason, we will be making sure that they have bespoke information and advice that is made available to all medical practitioners. That would include pharmacists regarding the change in the law and the operation of medical defence. It would not intend to change any decisions that are made medically in the treatment of a patient, but we want to make sure that people are aware of how that would affect them. On a wider note, clearly, we want awareness to be raised because we want to change people's behaviour. That is why we want to do that. We want to make the road safer and we do not want people to be driving cars while they are impaired by either alcohol or drugs, in this case. We will obviously be undertaking an awareness raising campaign to make sure that people are fully aware of the change in the law, which hopefully will help to change their behaviour. We are currently looking into that at the moment. It will certainly involve social media, but at the moment we have not completely finalised what shape exactly the awareness raising campaign will take, but it will be finalised in the next few weeks. In terms of those who are on prescription medications, has there been an assessment made of the risk of possibly looking at what is happening in Glendale Wales about people potentially not taking the medication that they should be taking for fear of falling foul of those sorts of laws? That is why it is very important that everybody has the correct information and that it should not make any difference. Obviously, if you are a medical professional, I have prescribed you a medication and told you that if you take it appropriately that you are fine to drive, you are fine to continue to do that, but there are some cases with some medicines where your doctor will tell you that you are not safe to drive while you are on that medicine. People need to comply with the instructions that are being given by their medical professional. If they do that, they will be fine and they will be in accordance with the law. From the experience in England Wales, has that emerged as an issue, or has it been managed reasonably effectively? I am not aware of it being a major issue. There may be the odd case where someone is confused, but certainly it has not come out as a major issue. I would like to follow up on those points. I would like to begin by declaring an interest. I take a controlled drug on a prescribed basis. I take methylphenidate as a result of my ADHD diagnosis. What more people will have to rely on? Will they be required to be fully aware of the small print that comes with their medication? You are correct to say that the medical advice should be clear to them, but how are you going to make sure that people are aware whether they are safe to drive? Indeed, there is also the flip side of that of people being worried that they may be in breach of the law when they do not need to worry, because either the drug that they take is not within this list, or indeed they are well within the safe limits based on medical advice. Obviously, that comes under the wider awareness-raising campaign, but, as I have already said, updated guidance to medical professionals and pharmacists to make sure that they are advising their patients correctly. However, it is also people's duty to make sure that if they are consuming medicines that they are not impaired, and if they feel that they are impaired, then they should not be driving. However, as we have already discussed, if you are taking the medication at the appropriate dosage and in line with your medical practitioner's advice, you should be in accordance with the law at that point. So, are there going to be specific instructions to pharmacists and GPs to provide communication? What form will that take? Will it be in writing, or will it be simply when the next time they pick up the prescription? We are talking about a population of people that may well have been taking medication for quite a prolonged period of time and it is very normalised for them, and they may not simply think to ask the question. So, we will be updating the advice for doctors and for pharmacists as well, and they will be advising their patients accordingly. I do not have any more detail on how exactly that will be. Yeah, but I think that it is a fair point for someone who is on a repeat prescription who maybe does not always see when they get the repeat prescription, so I think that there will be a need for medical professionals to make sure that any previous guidance that they should have offered about whether to drive or not is a reminder given to patients, so we can make sure that is part of the guidance to medical professionals. So, can I also ask about the practicalities of the medical defence? Because you can conceive of a scenario where an individual has an accident and therefore gets tested, tests positive, but for a drug that they have a prescription for, are they going to then be required to go along to a police station with their prescription? Will they have to give permission to their GP to make available their medical records? What are the practical implications of that for people who are taking prescribed drugs who may get found positive? Yes, the person who is in that position, if they are claiming the medical defence as part of their defence, they would need to put forward evidence that they are following the guidance given as a prescription, so they would have to do that. However, if they do that and the evidence shows that they were just following the instructions of the medical professional, then they will not have committed the offence. So, is there a risk that we will be at best inconveniencing, or is there indeed a risk of a degree of stigma attached to some of the drugs that people might take for particular conditions that may be inadvertently entrenching some of those attitudes? I do not think so. I think that the other thing to bear in mind is that this legislation, the drug types, the limits and the medical defence, is already in operation in England and Wales, where it has been working effectively for the past few years. Has there been any consultation with groups that may have people who have prescribed these? There was extensive consultation done in 2013 before it was brought in, and there was a Scottish sample of that, and the general approaches were well supported. My final question is, is there any risk of false positives? For example, people who take medication, which is not on this list, but because of the way that drugs are metabolised, may appear as a false positive in either roadside or subsequent drug testing? The process that the Scottish Police Authority has put in place to test for the 17 drug types is, as you would expect, robust, and it is going to be formally accredited, and that should avoid any suggestion of what you are indicating there. Certainly, the process down south, which the same drug types are tested for, I am not aware of that being an issue. Thank you, convener. Just very briefly at the start minister, you said that this would be the toughest approach in the UK. Presumably, what you mean by that is when it is combined with the drink and the drugs, because the drug strategy on its own just mirrors the UK, does it not? Just looking at the timescales, it has taken, I think, I am right in saying, about four years from when England and Wales bring it in to when we will be bringing it in. Why has it taken so long? Presumably, one would have thought that is because the success, or otherwise, of the English and Welsh scheme is being assessed perhaps for the points that Daniel Johnson was just making. If that is right, what was the extent of that assessment and did it really conclude that that scheme is perfect and there needs to be no change at all? Okay, so to answer the first part of your question, our analysis, and this is well backed up by the evidence, suggests that the biggest risk on our roads is people who are driving under the, you know, under the risk of alcohol, and so we prioritise because we thought it was most important that it would save the most lives lowering the drink drive limit, which we obviously did in 2014. Once that was, it was important obviously to let that bed in before we looked at the drug driving, so that's the reason. There was also, obviously, with the SPA undertaking the testing of these drug types and so on, there was quite a bit of equipment that needed to be purchased and training that needed to be done and so on, so we wanted to make sure that that was all appropriate and in position before we moved to this point. On the second part of your question, yes, obviously it gives us, obviously being able to look at south of the border, the consultation that was done in 2013 and the fact that the law is working effectively south of the border also means that for Scotland any lessons from that can be learned obviously for the implementation. I'll come back to the equipment in two seconds, but you say that there was the assessment in 2013 and the fact that it's working south of the border. Can you just reassure me, though, what assessment has been made since 2015 that it is working? If you see what I mean, what could be learned from that? What improvements could be made? Any lessons that can be learned from south of the border will be. Also, the SPA undertook an analysis as well of the drug types in the Scottish context that I set out in my opening statement that gives us confidence that the 17 drug types and the limits that we are proposing to put forward are appropriate in the Scottish context will be robust and will work well in Scotland. You mentioned the equipment in there, minister. In the evidence that we have, the National Police Chiefs Council said that the roadside equipment that Philip Lamont referred to earlier is single use, unlike presumably the drink drive test. Has there been any assessment done of whether that might make officers less likely to use it in terms of every time they use this piece of equipment? That's it, and it can't be re-used. Any assessment on that? Obviously, it will be an operational decision for Police Scotland to determine how to use the screening devices within the legal framework, but in general terms, police officers would retain their discretion as to how and what devices they use and in what circumstances. Obviously, the offence is not intended to replace the existing offence of driving whilst impaired, so we need to take that into consideration as well. However, I will ask my officials to give you some more detail on that question. As the minister said, it is an operational matter for Police Scotland, but it might be helpful to indicate that the cost of these devices is estimated at £20.50 for each device. If, for example, Police Scotland decided to purchase 3,000 of those for use across Scotland, that would total £61,500. That is clearly a sum of money that is not insubstantial. In the grand scheme of the operating budget for Police Scotland, it is not massive. Clearly, through operational practice and policy, it will approach it appropriately in terms of when officers will have those devices and when they will be used. Minister, if you could set out how it says that maximum penalty will be the same as the section 4 offence, could you say what that is and what other disposals might be used for someone who is found guilty of a drunk offence? The penalties that I will apply for the new offence are set by the UK Government. On conviction, somebody can receive up to six months in prison, a fine of up to £5,000 and a mandatory minimum 12-month driving ban. A person's driving licence will also be endorsed for 11 years with details of their conviction. The financial impact assessment, there is not any specific costings for that, but in the first year that was in operation in England and Wales, 8,000 people were arrested. Now, clearly not all of those would be found guilty, but that is quite a resource implication for just arrest for the police. If it goes to trial then for our courts, if there is then a challenge for expert witnesses and if the ultimate maximum penalty of imprisonment is imposed, then there will be more pressure in prisons. What kind of costings have been done for this? I will ask my official to give you a little more detail on the financial and my random. The financial impact assessment does not say exactly how many times we estimate it will be used because it is up to Police Scotland in the first instance to determine their operational approach, but what the financial impact assessment does is to seek to lay out three different scenarios of the total costs that may arise from different usage of the new offence based on the English experience. The final page of the financial impact assessment at paragraph 54 has a table, which gives all the details that you are seeking, convener. Could you perhaps give advice for the record? In terms of the costs falling on the justice system from the prosecution of the cases, the mid-range estimate would lead to 942 convictions per year for the new offence, so a little bit more than 10 per cent of the… The mid-range was taken as a rough 10 per cent of the English and Welsh total. That would… The prosecution case costs, so that includes Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, the Crown Office and the Scottish Legal Aid Board. That would approximately total £1.633 million a year. In terms of sentencing costs, so what happens after the court finds that someone guilty, the mid-range estimate would be £548,000 a year, so the total estimated recurring costs from the mid-range estimate would be £2.182 million. So, the total cost of that list of things that have been looked at in the impact assessment? Well, that's the cost of the prosecution cases and the sentence disposals. Is there any assessment of more prison places if it's a disposal work? That's in the sentencing, so there's estimates made of assumptions made about the number of people who may, from those who are convicted, receive as a disposal a custodial sentence, and that's included at the table in paragraph 53. So the average custody costs, which of course is not an actual cost, it's an opportunity cost for prisoners, would be approximately £160,000 a year. And we know that, you know, police stations, there's sometimes pressure on custodial the ability to hold prisoners in police cells. Has that been taken into account too? It was certainly taken into account in terms of the dialogue that we've been having with Police Scotland. They haven't put in a specific estimate for that cost because it would be used in existing facilities, but as a point to note, certainly if more people are getting arrested, which we would expect, although we hope that behaviour changes, that will put some pressure on the justice system to deal with the aftermath of that, including on police custody. And in terms of how this was all worked out, was it worked out as a proportion, a percentage of the arrests and the things that happened in England and a prorator just on a population basis? Yes, it was felt that it was most appropriate to look at the English and Welsh experience and then prorator it, but then also include a upper and lower estimate. And actually, sorry, I've just looked at the estimates of the estimate. I've been given, I've actually been given, the upper estimate. There's a central estimate, which is a little bit lower, but as I say, it's in the financial impact assessment at paragraph 54, which gives it one table that tries to outline the entire cost estimates. That's helpful because I think that in the breaks of mission, they make the point that, unless this is sufficiently resourced, then there's just going to be a culture of non-compliance, and the intended benefits won't be materialised. Are there any other questions, Fulton? Thanks, convener. Two brief questions. If that's okay, convener, good morning, minister, in panel. Minister, did you say a wee minute ago there that a custodial sentence, and I appreciate that its UK legislation driven would be up to six months? I just wonder how that would tie in with the policy of no sentences less than a year in terms of that overall framework. That is reserved to the UK Government, but, certainly, in Scotland, we want to move away from short sentencing as a whole as part of the wider justice setting. Excellent. My other question is probably something that I would assume the answer. It is going to be that it's not a serious concern, but a lot of people earlier were talking about controlled drugs for medical use. I wonder if the law in England and Wales has any commercial impact. A very quick five-second Google search led me to find an article done in 2000 right enough, which is now some years ago. The abstract of that article is that there has been a recent and significant increase in the use and availability of hemp seed oil products. Those products are being marketed as a healthy source if essential omega fatty acids have been taken orally. Although the health aspects of those oils are open to debate, the probability that oils derived from hemp seed will contain—I am not going to try to pronounce that—THC is not worthy, recent additions of the legislature cite a number of studies illustrating the ingestion of those products resulting in urinary levels of the THC. Again, I won't pronounce it above the administrative cut-off. In England and Wales, is that something that has come up? I think that there would be aspects of various commercial products that would have small trace amounts of things that are obviously illegal. The drug types that are on the list of 17 are split into two. Of course, there is zero tolerance approach for illegal drug types and then the medicinal approach, which is at the road safety level. If, within the substances that you are referring to, there are elements of the drug types on the list, then, if they are above the limit, an offence will be committed. It just depends on what the substance is. I am afraid that I am not an expert in terms of the exact substance that you are referring to there. Of course, there is the more general driving well-impaired offence, so someone, even if they are beneath the limit for one of the drug types here, if they are still driving in an impaired way due to drugs, then, even drugs that may be purchased in the manner that you have suggested, they could still be committing an offence under the existing offence. Although I was just going to say that it is a very good piece of legislation, I will fully support it. Just briefly, minister, if I might pick up on the point that was made by Fulton MacGregor, just to clarify, one of the sanctions for drug driving, one of the sanctions for being in charge of a vehicle under the influence or with cocaine in your system, would be six months imprisonment. If you bring in a presumption, which some might term a ban on sentences under 12 months, one of the sanctions for being in charge of that vehicle with cocaine in your system will be removed effectively. You will not go to prison for being in charge of a car under the influence of cocaine. That's correct, isn't it? The first thing to say is that, obviously, presumption is not in itself a ban. Obviously, it would be for the courts to decide on the appropriate disposals, so we would obviously support that. You decided on the appropriate disposal because you're telling the court to take a presumption against 12 months, so the six months would not be available to sanction the guilty party. The six months would be available because the presumption is not a ban and it would be up to the court to make that decision. There's just one final question that I had, minister. It was about the RANDOX testing services. There's been some concern about that north of the border. Also, just to tease out where that kicks in, is that about the devices itself? Then, in the police submission, they said that they'd be going to the SPA and using their forensic experts to test. Could you tell me where that all fits together? Yes, you're quite correct. In England and Wales, there have been some problems with that. The forensic testing that's done there is done by different independent providers, and that will not be the case in Scotland. In Scotland, the forensic testing will be the responsibility of the SPA. They're very experienced in carrying out forensic testing of that type in relation to drugs, so we don't expect any similar problems to arise in Scotland as a result of that. It's also probably worth making the point that there has been on-going and extensive collaboration between all the relevant justice partners, so that would be the Crown Office, Police Scotland and the SPA concerning that, working together to put the appropriate procedures for the new offence, learn any appropriate lessons from implementation that's already being done south of the border and to take that into account in the course of the work that's on-going in Scotland. Okay, thank you. That's very helpful. Anything else that members want to ask the minister? Anything you want to say in closing, minister? In that case, the Gentile Item 3 is the formal consideration of the motion in relation to the affirmative instrument. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has considered and reported on the instrument. I had no comments on it. The motion is motion 1526 that the Justice Committee recommends that the drug driving specified limit Scotland regulations 2019 draft be approved and invite the minister to move the motion. Members, do you have any comments or additional questions? No. In that case, the question is that motion 1557 in the name of Ash Stemin be approved. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes consideration of the instrument. The committee's report will note and confirm the outcome of the debate. Are the committee agreed to delegate the authority to me as convener to clear the final draft report? Thank you for that. Can I thank the minister and her officials for attending? That concludes the public part of today's meeting. Our next meeting will be on 26 February when we take oral evidence on the issue of elder abuse and the question of whether this should be an aggravated defence. We now move into private session.