Chamber and committees

It would be helpful to get some more information on the implications of some of the clauses. I have a question about the “various bodies” that would authorise access to driver licence records. It would be helpful if the names of those bodies were set out, so that we knew what the provision actually meant.

I would have liked to see the note from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee before today. The timing is a little tight and I think that we need more information on the bill before I would be content to support the legislative consent memorandum. I have no objection to asking the minister to come to speak to us—that would depend on what other members think—but I would certainly not be content to sign this off without fully understanding the implications of the clauses containing provisions that require the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

On the face of it, it looks like clause 14 of the bill as introduced, concerning corporate liability, would include senior managers, which is quite a broad term. Who is regarded as being a senior manager? I am sure that that has all been considered and worked out, but what has been put before us is light on detail, and I would not be content to sign off on it without having a full understanding of it.

A question sprang to mind when I was listening to Russell Findlay. We already have specific legislation on child grooming. It would be helpful to know whether there is duplication there from the Scottish Government’s point of view. Criminal law is normally a matter for this Parliament, unless it is international organised crime. We need to be clear about why we would need offences that would be an aggravation of an existing offence. We need to know whether that gives the Crown the option of how the offence is charged, if you follow me. That may seem simple on the face of it, but devolved competence normally allows Scotland to decide how it wishes to proceed. I am sure that there are very good reasons for that, but we need to ask the question, because we certainly do not want any confusion about this.

It is helpful that the Scottish Government has recognised the need for change in relation to police officers dealing with cases of people experiencing a mental health crisis. The Scottish Police Federation has said that we need a triage system that links up services to ensure that people get the help that they need quickly. Will the cabinet secretary consider, as part of the work that she mentioned, a collaboration between health and justice services to create a triage service so that people get the help that they need and we free up police time?

It will be interesting to see whether the pilot approach has public confidence. One essential question is who arbitrates on whether a response is proportionate. How can the cabinet secretary ignore the Police Federation, which said that the policy

“sets a dangerous precedent and we should be very careful”?

Is this a slippery slope? If such crimes are not investigated, how do we know that other crimes will continue to be investigated? How can the cabinet secretary be sure that the policy has public confidence?

Scottish Labour pays tribute to the SPS and its staff for the very hard job that they do.

Will the cabinet secretary give more detail on the plan to use GPS functionality in relation to community sentencing? Scottish Labour is very interested in talking to the Scottish Government about developments in that regard.

In her statement, the cabinet secretary said that the issue is not just about the number of people in prison but about the impact of that on the ability to focus on prisoner progress. However, there do not appear to be any plans to improve the conditions in which prisoners are serving their sentence, because they are still doubling up in cells and there is a lack of activity. It is hard to see how any of the plans address the acute nature of serious overcrowding.

I also wonder when we will get to see whether the strategy for older people in prisons is a concrete commitment, because I know that it is just a possibility.

Critically, on the question of HMP Barlinnie, there is confusion about the timeline. Will the cabinet secretary be absolutely clear with Parliament what the timeline is for building the new HMP Barlinnie? Is the Government still committed to doing so? Will we see one brick laid this side of this session of Parliament or has the Government dropped any serious commitment to replace HMP Barlinnie? What is the truth?

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?