³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Good morning, and thank you for your evidence so far. A lot of it seems to me to come down to the initial period, which seems to be absolutely crucial. We have heard evidence from you today about a truly horrendous situation that might, had matters been dealt with properly in the first place, never have transpired. We have also heard, from other witnesses, evidence of almost the opposite—that had things been looked at properly in the first place, the situation could have been dealt with better.

Do you have any ideas—either on what the bill proposes or any other suggestions—about how the process can be made better at that very early stage, when complaints are first made? I know that you have talked a lot about that today. What can we, as a committee, do with regard to the bill?

Good morning to you, Stephanie, and to those who are supporting you. Thank you very much for a powerful testimony and for bringing your son’s and your case to the Criminal Justice Committee.

I have a very small question, which is not on the sheet that was handed out to you, so I hope that it is okay to ask it. It is about the issue that you raised about legal representation and how you felt that the police pushed back on that. It somewhat surprised me when I heard that. Do you think that that is something that the bill could cover? When somebody is at the start of a complaint process, do you think that it would be helpful if the police sat down and advised them to get legal advice?

Bill has answered my questions but I will just clarify those points. You are saying that, obviously, the PIRC is not your preference. The PIRC is in place but, at that very early stage of the process, the police officers whom the complaints have been made against should not have any involvement in the initial approach from the PIRC. That is your approach to the PIRC.

Thank you very much for your evidence so far. I want to ask a question that is a wee bit from the other side of the discussion that we have had today. All our witnesses today have spoken about serious cases and serious impacts. Thank you again for bringing that to the committee in the way that you have done. At some point you have acknowledged that the seriousness of concerns is on a scale from very low to very high. We are making changes and we want to get that independence right, but how can we quickly identify complaints that are less serious and can be dealt with quickly to prevent the system from becoming overwhelmed?

I ask that question because almost anybody could have a complaint the minute they find that the police are in their lives, but not all of those complaints will be as serious as those described by you and your fellow witnesses today. Have you had any thoughts on how to do that? We would not want to create a system that gets clogged up quickly.

Outside this committee session, we have been speaking about other bills that have been through Parliament, and in respect of which too many complaints have gone to the police in the initial weeks. We do not want the time of police officers or any other organisations to be taken up in that way—we want them to be concentrating on cases such as yours and Stephanie’s. Have you got any ideas about how we might quickly get to that stage? I am sorry if that question is a wee bit out of the blue.

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?