Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, Bill, for your very powerful testimony and for coming in here to try to make change. You have made it pretty clear to colleagues already that you do not think that the PIRC is really the right body to deal with this. The bill has some focus on improving, for want of a better word, the PIRC’s role and making it more robust.

Although we have just started, we have already heard some evidence about instances in which the PIRC has been successful—effective is probably the right word. That has clearly not been the case for you. If there is not going to be what you wish—a totally brand-new, independent organisation—and the main function is to remain with the PIRC, can anything be included in the bill to improve the PIRC even further, and to provide that distance between the police officers and the PIRC?

I should have said that, with regard to there being no contact and the police officers concerned not being able to view those complaints, that should be the case in both formal and informal processes. You sound most concerned about those informal processes—that informal culture. An informal culture will exist in any organisation, but those processes are a particular concern in something as high profile and high risk as the police.

Would it have been helpful for you, and others in a similar situation, if, at that very early stage, police officers or people in the police had advised you to get legal advice and had been supportive of that?

Good morning to the minister and to Jim Wilson.

I have a couple of questions today that come from the Blue Cross briefing. As Pauline McNeill has already raised an issue outlined in the briefing—that is, the definition—I will not ask about that.

One of the two areas that I want to ask about is the veterinary sector. In cases in which there is no application for an exemption, are you confident that there is capacity to perform the neutering? Have you had a think about the impact on vets and their staff if they have to carry out such work on a healthy dog?

Will it continue to be involved?

That is excellent.

My final question is on a similar theme. What about those who do not seek an exemption but look instead at rehoming options? What indications are you getting about the capacity challenges that kennels face? I have previously mentioned Bedlay Gardens in my constituency, for example. Can any additional support be offered to such organisations?

Good morning to the minister and her officials.

I have a brief question, because, although the session has been short, it has been pretty full, and the minister has given detailed answers. My question is on an area that other members, particularly Kevin Stewart, have asked about, which is how the Government ensures that it captures the views of people with lived experience when making budget decisions. Will the minister elaborate a wee bit on how that is done and put it into the context of the work of the committee?

I know that the minister takes a great interest in the work of the committee and always has done, probably even prior to her appointment as a minister. She will be aware of the experience panels that the committee has engaged in and what we feel has been their success. When looking at budgets, does the Scottish Government take into account the work of the committee in engaging with people with lived experience?

I have not so much a question as a wee statement. First, I thank the minister for her engagement on the issue with me and with those in my constituency. I also thank Kelsey Kiernan, her family and the whole team at Bedlay Gardens Ltd dog care in Chryston in my constituency, including the many experts that they have on site, and people such as Blue Cross that have provided us with briefings on the issue. I will be honest with you: prior to this issue, I did not have a great knowledge of the XL bully situation, but I feel that I now have, because of the information that I have been provided with by constituents and experts.

As the minister knows, I think that this is very bad legislation from the UK Government. Perhaps my Tory colleagues on the committee will say that it is an attempt to make society safer. However, on committees and otherwise in the Parliament, we have always prided ourselves on listening to experts and to those who know the situation. The experts in this field clearly and consistently tell us that this legislation is bad, has a high risk of not working, is a knee jerk, and is ill thought out. The UK Government had a duty to listen to those experts. I might be wrong—I stand to be corrected—but, to me, it feels as though the legislation has been put together by UK Government ministers and officials, not experts.

All that said, I started off by thanking the minister, and I know exactly the path that she has had to take on the legislation. At the end of the day, the UK Government has not legislated for dogs being taken to Scotland or elsewhere, but that has happened. I am aware of press articles and the like about large numbers of XL bullies being brought into Scotland. Ultimately, therefore, we have been pushed into a corner. I will support the legislation, but I want to make it very clear and put it on record that we have been pushed into this position. I know that the minister did not quite say this, but I want to say it: we have been pushed into this position because the loopholes were not closed.

From what I have heard from the animal welfare organisations that have been in touch, including those in my constituency, I do not think that the legislation will make the situation safer. In fact, it will create a host of other issues up and down the UK, including perhaps animal welfare concerns when people decide not to get a licence, and other issues that members may speak about.

As I said, I do not have a question. I end by again thanking the minister. I know that my constituents feel listened to, through the meeting that we had. I have had feedback from them. They feel that she gets the concerns and that she is listening to them and will find a way through this. I realise and accept that we have no choice but to bring in the legislation at this time.

I do not think that it is fair to argue that there is a split between people who are legislating for public safety and other people who, like me, have concerns about the legislation. That implies that the latter group does not have concerns about public safety. At the beginning of the meeting, I made the point that the animal organisations—the experts—are saying that they do not believe that the order will make the situation safer.

On the back of Russell Findlay’s last line of questioning, I think that we should unite in saying that everybody around this table, and everybody who is involved in the debate, has public safety at heart. We may disagree on the legislation, but nobody on either side should be taking the moral high ground.

My question is quite brief. We are in a general election year, and the Labour Party may form the next UK Government—we do not know. Given the concerns from stakeholders about the legislation, and the fact that it will probably run into difficulties as we go along, if a new UK Government were to remove the legislation, where would we stand? Is there a possibility that we could be left with this legislation when the UK, at some point in the future, no longer has it in force?

I know that that is a hypothetical, theoretical question, with a lot of moving parts, but it dawned on me during the discussions that I should ask it. It would be ironic if we ended up with the legislation in place here while it is removed elsewhere.

I really appreciate Christine Grahame’s input. It was very powerful and I can see the amount of work that she has done in this area.

She also made a comment in relation to me. I clarify that I am not pinning my hopes on a Labour backtrack on the legislation—my question on that was hypothetical. I have every feeling that that might not be top of the priority list for a new Government, if and when the Government changes.

I will not—disappointingly for Christine Grahame, I am sure—vote for the motion to annul. That is because, while I agree almost entirely with what she says, I disagree on one bit. Although the Government has been backed into a corner on the matter, I believe that, at this point in time, the order represents a prudent move to make. I heard the minister’s commitment, both in meetings with me and today in committee, that she will work through some of the issues that have come up in order to get to a better place further down the line.

With the UK Government having passed its legislation at such pace, and the fact that—whether or not the instances were recorded, and whether or not they came from social media—people have tried to evade the law in England by bringing XL bullies up to Scotland, we have been put in a very difficult position. On the basis of playing it really safe, and nothing more, I will not vote for the motion to annul and I will support the Government’s SSI.