³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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.

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.

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 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.