Chamber and committees

I thank Ivan McKee for bringing this important and timely debate. I apologise to the Presiding Officer and the Parliament: I set a meeting last November that I have, unavoidably, to chair, so I cannot stay until the end of the debate. Members who know me know that, if it were not for that, I would be here until the end. I apologise sincerely.

As we all speak today, Israel launches more air strikes in Rafah. Sadly, there will be even more deaths than the 30,000 civilians who have been killed so far. Up to 100,000 have been injured, and 10,000 children have been killed. There are no functioning hospitals and no services to protect people. There will be no emergency services to rescue people from under the rubble. Many Gazans go to sleep at night knowing that their relatives are buried under rubble and might still be alive.

Some 1.7 million people have been displaced—more than once. Some of them were already refugees, from 1948 and 1967, but now many have been displaced five, six or seven times.

The speed of the bombing, the unprecedented scale of the military operation and the indiscriminate nature of the weapons that strike Gazans—including white phosphorous—make the situation like nothing we have witnessed in any recent modern war.

Those who have followed the horrible and horrific examples of what has happened in Gaza could not have failed to notice the story that has been reported by the Palestinian Red Crescent Society, of Hind Najab. She was a young girl who died alone trying to call emergency services—her last hours spent in a car surrounded by the dead bodies of her relatives, reporting a tank coming towards her. A few days later, we found out that she was dead.

The strategy has been laid bare. The Israeli hostages—who must be protected and released—are not even a priority for Netanyahu, as is clear from the statements that he has made. Members of his Government have also said that there is no such thing as an innocent Palestinian, and others who are more extreme have said that they want, if they can clear Gaza, more settlements and Palestinians removed.

It is about time that we stood up and said that the dehumanisation of the Palestinian population—the denial of their rights and of their existence—is not tolerable. People cannot even leave Gaza. Most members who are participating in this debate know that Gazans have been under blockade for 17 years. The world has a lot to answer for.

I do not have time, unfortunately. I am sorry, Paul.

Dr Margaret Harris, who like many brave doctors has served in Gaza, recently reported that emergency services expect to see young men, but are seeing children. That is because more than 50 per cent of the population in Gaza is under the age of 18.

While all that is happening, there is more violence on the west bank. We will not see much of it because we are watching what is happening in Gaza, but the violence there is quite horrific. Israeli settlers, who are illegally in the occupied territories, are stealing Palestinian homes and being protected by the Israeli army while they do so.

I believe that Palestine is the moral question of our time, and that the matter is not just about standing up for a ceasefire now. As Ivan McKee said in his opening speech, 75 years after the Palestinians were promised a state of their own, and after 56 years of illegal occupation, more than 100 countries now recognise Palestine. It is not out of step to do so. Where one stands on the question matters, because the hopes and dreams of Israelis and Palestinians depend on it.

Did you say that Scotland was doing its own work as well, separate from that?

I just wanted to understand the timetable.

Minister, you have confirmed that closing the loophole is the purpose of the instruments.

I want to ask you about that.

Are you concerned about the definition of an XL bully dog? You said that, in the two incidents that we know about, the breed of the dogs cannot be confirmed. In addition, under the provisions, who makes the final decision on whether a dog is an XL bully dog?

The purpose of the SSI is to set out the conditions for keeping an XL bully dog. You have mentioned the exemptions, but we will not see the instrument for those until much later in the year. I was a wee bit concerned about the separation of that from the SSI that we are considering today, in that we cannot see yet what the exemptions are. Could you explain the reason for the separation?

Would we not be in the same position? Would you not expect to see a definition if it is so important to decide which dogs are covered by, or referred to in, the SSI and which are not? Do you see what I mean?

The working group that Jim Wilson was talking about was to discuss the policy of how to tackle XL bully dogs. Is that right? Have I understood that correctly?

I am just trying to understand the situation. Was Scotland feeding in to the DEFRA expert group on what you already knew was the planned changes to legislation in England in relation to XL bully dogs?

I am just trying to get my head round this. Is it the case that you knew from that expert working group that England was planning to ban XL bully dogs?