Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I echo your remarks about the previous convener.

I nominate Karen Adam.

Karen Adam was chosen as convener.

Thank you, convener, and welcome to your role.

I have a quick question. You partly covered this issue in your opening statement, but the obvious question is, what would the consequence be of not introducing the bill?

Yes, I think so.

You might not be able to answer this, but how close do you—or the Government—feel that a pilot is to beginning, after the bill as currently drafted is passed? What is in the Government’s mind about that? Is it considering any dates or timeframes?

I have one more question, convener, if that is okay.

I must apologise in advance, cabinet secretary. Because of the fullness of your answers so far in this evidence session, I run the risk of asking you questions that might prompt you to repeat yourself.

You have talked a lot about the various opinions on juryless trials, and we have seen a variety of opinions among victims who have experienced the court process. When you assess the pilot—assuming that it goes ahead—what weight will you give to such questions? The people in the pilot will not have had experience of a jury, but will you be making some comparisons to identify those areas where victims and witnesses felt that one system was better than the other? I ask that, because one of the victims said that they would prefer to have a number of people involved in their case instead of just one. How will that be filtered into the review of the pilot?

That is no problem.

Okay.

I have a final question. To clarify, the Government’s position is that removing the not proven verdict is tied—for want of a better word—to jury sizes. That is the Government’s clear view. There is not an option to remove the not proven verdict and keep the jury size as it is, for example.