Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 27 August 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1839 contributions

|

Criminal Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 27 March 2024

Pauline McNeill

Christine Grahame is absolutely right that some of the Parliament’s procedures are not satisfactory, and this is one of those. I would have preferred other members to have had a say but, as committee members, we have to take responsibility for the process.

I agree with Russell Findlay that the process has been difficult, because we have had to come to quite a quick conclusion on a widely reported public safety issue. When we began the process, the dogs concerned were XL bully types, but we still do not know whether the dogs in some cases were XL bullies.

Christine Grahame is right to raise those points. I am slightly nervous, but I do not think that the committee has much choice. I think that there is a loophole. I suppose that the minister is saying something that may be proven right in time. There may well be a loophole but, if the founding legislation is not quite what it should be, we are building on something that might be flawed. We cannot know that now, which puts us in an unfortunate and difficult position because we have to make a decision today.

Christine made a point about scrutiny. There are some areas of the Parliament’s work that are so substantial that they are not really suitable for SSIs, but we are stuck with a process that was decided some time ago and not by us.

Criminal Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 27 March 2024

Pauline McNeill

Good morning. You have probably answered most of the questions that I had in relation to the exemption—the issue has been well covered. I suppose that the fact that the dog owner can go on holiday for up to 30 days in a 12-month period makes sense.

As you have said, minister, the principle behind the legislation is to prohibit the breeding and selling of XL bully dogs. Is the thinking that, in time, there will be no XL bully dog owners in Scotland?

Criminal Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 27 March 2024

Pauline McNeill

I will ask a question that was put to you last time, and which I am sure that Christine Grahame asked, too. What you have said might be the principle behind the legislation, but, given the definition, the breeders of XL bully dogs might just breed slightly smaller dogs. Will you have to reconsider how the legislation is framed at that point?

Criminal Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 27 March 2024

Pauline McNeill

There have been some pretty horrible attacks. With regard to the one that was mentioned at the previous committee meeting, the last time that I checked, the breed of the dog had still not been identified. It might not even be possible to identify the breed. The intention is to capture a breed of dog that is seen to be more prone to attacking and to end its existence, but in some high-profile incidents, we have not established that they involved XL bully dogs. You might well give me the same answer that you have just given, but have you given any thought to that?

Criminal Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 27 March 2024

Pauline McNeill

Does that mean that, in some cases, there is just no way of knowing? I do not know whether there are any tests that can be done—forgive my ignorance.

Meeting of the Parliament

First Minister’s Question Time

Meeting date: 21 March 2024

Pauline McNeill

To ask the First Minister what resources the Scottish Government will be providing to Police Scotland for the investigation of complaints made under the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. (S6F-02959)

Meeting of the Parliament

First Minister’s Question Time

Meeting date: 21 March 2024

Pauline McNeill

The First Minister has reiterated several times that the act, which comes into force on 1 April, must deliver what Parliament intended and that people must not be criminalised for expressing their opinions. I agree. Some organisations are still concerned that the legislation will be used maliciously to silence legitimate opinion. It would be helpful for the Scottish Government to engage with those groups.

Does the First Minister agree that how the act is interpreted by the police and how the police are trained on it are key and that resources for that are crucial? Does the First Minister understand my concerns that the police are not properly resourced and, crucially, not properly and adequately trained to implement the act as it was intended? We agree that the act could risk criminalising innocent people and further stretching police resources. I ask the First Minister to make the act work and to make sure that there are full resources to ensure that what Parliament intended is delivered.

Meeting of the Parliament

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 20 March 2024

Pauline McNeill

Funding was not in place last year in time for local authorities to decide to use the provisions relating to firework control zones. Is the minister confident that preparation is complete for this year and that local authorities such as Glasgow City Council, which needs those powers, will be more able to use them?

Meeting of the Parliament

Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 19 March 2024

Pauline McNeill

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app was not working. I would have voted yes.

Meeting of the Parliament

General Question Time

Meeting date: 14 March 2024

Pauline McNeill

In a letter to me about the Horizon scandal, the Lord Advocate said that

“prosecutors could not and would not have raised proceedings on the basis of the Horizon evidence alone”,

and I am aware that the Crown Office used an independent report that was prepared by the forensic accountancy firm Second Sight Investigations, which was presented to it by the Post Office as corroboration. The director of Second Sight has said that its interim report “revealed system flaws” and problems with the prosecution process. I am therefore keen to understand why the Crown Office was content to use the report as corroboration. If the Solicitor General is not able to say today why the Crown Office still proceeded to use that report as corroboration, will she at least commit to writing to me on that point?