Seòmar agus comataidhean

Cabinet secretary, my query may be too specific for an immediate response. A constituent of mine represents the Glencorse Centre, which is a Scottish charity that is also registered as a UK company limited by guarantee. He is not clear whether, under the guidance, he is required to register the charity as having a controlling interest in land.

I would be happy to receive a written answer if the cabinet secretary cannot clarify the position now.

Well, I have been called craven now, which is news to me. I will put my cards on the table: I prefer light, not heat, and fact, not fiction, so here are some facts. Let us look at the hate crime statistics, which predate this legislation.

Since 2014-15, the number of hate crimes—I emphasise the word “crimes”—that have been recorded each year in Scotland has been between 6,300 and 7,000, so hate crime is not new, although perhaps the public, like many of us, were not aware of the extent of it.

Fact: just under a third of hate crimes in Scotland involved a victim who experienced the incident at their place of work or while undertaking duties as part of their occupation. Fact: most of those victims were working in retail or other service industries. Fact: in 2020-21, one in four recorded hate crimes had a police officer victim, with the figure rising to 37 per cent for religion and 45 per cent for sexual orientation-aggravated crimes. In January 2023, the police reported that nearly 7,000 hate crimes were recorded in 2021-22. So, such crimes have been being committed, perhaps without us realising or noticing.

What happened in the rest of the UK? Our legislation is not the same as, but is similar to, legislation in England and Wales, where the law recognises five types of hate crime on the basis of the characteristics of disability, race, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity. However, we have introduced the characteristic of age, which is good and will, I hope, lead to older people reporting offences against them that have been committed, in part, simply because they are old.

Elsewhere in the UK, the stirring up of hatred on the ground of religion has been criminalised in England and Wales since 2007, and the stirring up of hatred on the ground of sexual orientation has been criminalised since 2010. In Northern Ireland, the law recognises the characteristics of disability, race, religion and sexual orientation.

Of course, our legislation follows the independent review that Lord Bracadale carried out in 2018. I will turn to a few of his recommendations. Recommendation 10 states:

“There should be a new statutory aggravation based on age hostility.

Where an offence is committed, and it is proved that the offence was motivated by hostility based on age, or the offender demonstrates hostility towards the victim based on age during, or immediately before or after, the commission of the offence, it would be recorded as aggravated by age hostility. The court would be required to state that fact on conviction and”—

I underline these words—

“take it into account when sentencing.”

We are talking about aggravations to crimes that have already taken place. That is what an aggravation is.

Recommendation 15 states:

“The current provisions in relation to stirring up racial hatred under the Public Order Act 1986 should be revised and consolidated in a new Act containing all hate crime and stirring up of hatred legislation.”

Recommendation 16 states:

“A protection of freedom of expression provision similar to that in sections 29J and 29JA of the Public Order Act 1986 and section 7 OBFTCA should be included in any new legislation relating to stirring up offences.”

What has followed—I am glad that the Government has admitted this—has been a failure to communicate adequately to the public that the offences in question are not new, with the exception of age as a characteristic, the inclusion of which I am sure that members welcome. However, in my view, that omission has been exacerbated by a deliberate Conservative campaign of disinformation—note that I use the word “disinformation”, not “misinformation”. In my opinion, that bare-faced opportunism probably fuelled the many spam complaints that were received in the first week of the legislation’s implementation. In the second week of implementation, that number dropped by 75 per cent.

I share Fergus Ewing’s concerns regarding Murdo Fraser’s experience and the experience of others, and I trust that the cabinet secretary will give Fergus Ewing’s full comments due consideration, because I think that he hit the nail on the head. I, too, will quote Adam Tomkins, the former Conservative MSP and professor of public law. In March, he stated:

“Offensive speech is not criminalised by this legislation: the only speech relating to sexual orientation, transgender identity, age or disability outlawed here is speech which”—

this is not mentioned in the quote, but I add that these tests are not alternatives but are cumulative—

“(1) a reasonable person (2) would consider to be threatening or abusive and which (3) was intended to stir up hatred and (4) was not reasonable in the circumstances.”

All of those tests must be met.

Unfortunately for me, the charge is led not by Liz Smith or Jamie Greene, who made considered contributions, but, as usual, by Russell Findlay, who is not known for forensic talents similar to those of Adam Tomkins with regard to legislation but has, apparently, an insatiable appetite for the next tabloid banner headline, with his self-indulgent, flamboyant and frequently reckless contributions here and, indeed, in committee. That might offend Mr Findlay, but I trust that he will appreciate that that is an example of my right to expression of free speech, which I know he will defend to the hilt.

There is no escaping the fact that people in rural homes face a particular challenge in remaining warm or decarbonising their heat systems in an affordable way, and that the exceptions in legislation are necessary. Will the minister reassure my constituents in Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale that, through the new-build heat standard, consideration is being given to the unique needs of rural and remote homes, and that rural home owners can access additional support, including grant funding, to meet their clean heating needs?

I declare an interest as convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare.

To ask the First Minister, further to the regulations relating to XL bully-type dogs coming into force, to whom a dog owner can apply for advice on whether their dog fits the conformation of the XL bully-type, in light of reports that a substantial number of dog owners in England are now applying to deregister their dogs having established retrospectively that their pet does not conform to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs definition of an XL bully-type dog. (S6F-02987)

I do not know whether there is a solution to this problem, but does Craig Hoy agree that it is rather tough that Crystal FM has to pay substantial amounts in VAT and that, because it is not an income-generating business, it cannot even apply to be VAT registered? Given Mr Hoy’s strong communications with his Westminster colleagues, might he be able to pursue that issue?

In England and Wales, 55,000 applications for registration have been made and 300 healthy and well-behaved dogs have been put down as a result of knee-jerk UK legislation, following horrendous, but very few, fatal dog attacks that were not even wholly attributable to an XL bully-type dog.

There is, as yet, no UK guidance on how to deregister. The pet owner decides whether their pet conforms to the DEFRA definition—20 inches in height for a dog, and 19 inches for a bitch—to be registered. If the animal does not conform to that, the owner need not check the other confirmation characteristics.

I respectfully suggest that the Scottish Government provide clear guidance to the public at large, in a publicity scheme, on the definition, and on deregistration, given that we are stuck—to be frank—with this wholly unnecessary and unjust legislation.

It is a pleasure to speak—and not for the first time—on the importance of community radio. The debate focuses on Crystal FM, which is located in Penicuik, in my constituency, and particularly on the success of the station in winning the best community broadcaster award for the second time.

I visited the studio recently, and very professional it is, too. I met Colin McCall, the anchorman, who has devoted his time to the good of Penicuik over decades. He first campaigned with the station to save its Jackson Street facilities years ago. Unfortunately, that was a battle lost, but you cannot keep a good man down. We had a good, long chat about all that the station does and some of its issues, which I will come to, as well as coming to more about Colin.

The station was launched on 1 December 2013. It is run by volunteers and broadcasts over south Midlothian, Edinburgh and the Lothians, as well as to listeners all over the world via the internet. With more than 50 presenters and information providers involved, it has non-stop, 24/7 output and is an important part of the community, but it depends on donations and subscriptions. Simply to survive, it has to raise £12,000 annually.

The station has overcome setbacks over the years—flooded studios, a move to temporary accommodation for a period of six months and, when Covid appeared, a requirement to move to other premises to ensure that the studios were Covid compliant. As a result, it went from its temporary accommodation to a permanent home in the Eastfield business centre in Penicuik.

The radio service has been maintained, which means that youngsters from Peni high, Beeslack community high school, and Peebles and Lasswade high schools can continue to participate in the service, gaining hands-on experience in all aspects of broadcasting, thereby developing skills, confidence and self-esteem.

Those committed volunteers ensure the smooth running and scheduling of programmes. They do outreach work with individuals who are housebound and encourage others to visit the studios to participate in discussion, learn new skills and allow spells away from their home isolation. Older members of the community enjoy the autonomy in the creation of their own shows and the community engagement that is involved, thus benefiting from the feel-good factor and having their mental health enhanced. Individuals with special needs are catered for, including two with physical handicaps, an individual who is autistic and one who suffers from Asperger’s syndrome.

Funding is a constant worry, but the station is supported by 12 businesses that are classified as “proud supporters” of Crystal FM and numerous individuals who pledge support with regular and frequent financial pledges. Many other donations are received from others from time to time, and the Crystal FM radio club provides financial support via membership fees.

However, outlays are substantial. Over a 10-year period, Ofcom receives £6,000 and wireless telegraphy licensing costs £2,500. Music licensing fees to PPL, PRS for Music and the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society—MCPS—are £30,000. VAT payments in excess of £25,000 are made over 10 years. That is a particularly cruel levy on the local service, which is not a business and therefore cannot apply to be VAT registered, because it does not have the income level. Powers over VAT are reserved to Westminster, but I hope that, at some point, something can be done for such organisations that have VAT burdens to carry.

Crystal FM has a really good website, which has had

“well over 110,000 hits”.

The station

“now has over 50 presenters and information providers involved in the 24-hour-a-day, seven days a week, output”.

Colin McCall, is the station’s co-ordinator and a former primary school teacher. He is now in his 80th year, but, like me, he is flourishing. He founded the station,

“which was shortlisted for a Community Award in last year’s Midlothian and East Lothian Chamber of Commerce Awards, with a handful of other enthusiasts who donated £100 each”.

Colin has said:

“Crystal FM came to fruition because Black Diamond”—

in Newtongrange—

“was not receivable over here in Penicuik. I forwarded an application of Ofcom to extend the area to Penicuik and they refused.

They did, however, say they would look favourably on a Penicuik application. Six or seven of us put £100 on the table and 18 months later Crystal FM came about. This is the start of our 11th year and we have a great team of volunteers who have made that possible.”

The station’s reach is supposed to be six miles from the studio in Eastfield business centre, on Eastfield Farm Road in Penicuik. However, as Colin says,

“How do you stop a radio signal? It is variable because you can go a very short distance and the signal is lost or you can go a long distance and pick up the signal. For example, I’ve picked up the signal from the golf course car park in Kirkcaldy”—

I do not know what he was doing there—

“and it is excellent quality in the car, but our signal also reaches Ratho near Edinburgh as it must go through a gap in the Pentland Hills.”

Is that not intriguing? He continues:

“We now stream out online and it is interesting to note that since we moved to our new studio more than two years ago we have now had over 100,000 hits on our website. Looking further afield, on the internet our broadcasts are worldwide and our regular top four online are the UK, USA, Europe and India. We also have listeners in Australia. I don’t really know why we have listeners in India but it may possibly be a link to the people who live here and it allows their relatives to listen, but India has always figured in the top three or four.”

That is a wee exercise for somebody: find out why India listens to Crystal FM. Good stuff, Colin.

I commend all those who work at Crystal FM, the volunteers, the donors and the listeners, who make it all worth while. I wish them many more decades ahead.

I am not going to ask a question. Do you wish me to proceed?

No, I am not going to ask questions; I am just going to submit.

I have been deleting like mad so that I can get in what I want to say.

The minister has been put in an invidious position. Notwithstanding that, it is my duty as a parliamentarian to indicate where I have grave concerns about the quality of the legislation.

It is important to consider the consequences to date of the XL bully-type provisions. In this instance, I am talking about the impact of the compensation and exemption schemes in England and Wales, because we can see what has happened there. According to DEFRA, since the start of the ban on XL bully-type dogs, 55,000 dogs have been registered and there have been 61,000 applications. That gives an idea of the size of the issue. Those numbers are staggering. As a result of some horrendous attacks, although they have been few in number, at least 55,000 dogs will be neutered and muzzled, and some will be put down. Indeed, 300 have been put down to date. Those dogs were not subject to any criminal proceedings and they were healthy. The distress to owners is considerable.

DEFRA has suggested a deregistration scheme. We have heard about issues concerning the definition, as ably described by Pauline McNeill. If a dog is just an inch shorter than the 20 inches for a male XL bully-type dog, it does not comply with the definition. It is the owner who has to do all the work—nobody else. DEFRA is suggesting a deregistration scheme, but it has not said how and when that will actually work. By the time that that is clarified, the dogs concerned will probably be neutered, and they might have been muzzled for months. That shows the clumsiness of the legislation.

The onus is on the owners, who are searching for information online about cane corsos, Rottweilers, German shepherds, Staffordshires and even Jack Russells to work out what they have and whether their dog complies.

Last November, the BVA made it plain to DEFRA that it is

“extremely concerned by Defra’s assertion that there is sufficient veterinary capacity to effectively manage the ban.”

It also stated that

“it is ... vital that additional support is provided for owners to help them type their dog”,

and asked for an

“extension to the ... neutering deadlines”,

which has been granted. There are huge concerns about animal welfare from DEFRA itself, which compiled the definition—I hope that members have read it, because it goes to many paragraphs.

I thought that I would quote from a dog owner, who said:

“I have lost all of my rights to make appropriate welfare choices for my dog to treat his chronic stress, he has lost his freedoms simply because he’s two inches taller than another dog, and any day of the week the police might knock on my door to arrest me if I choose to meet my dog’s basic welfare needs in a completely safe way. I would be facing six months in prison simply for meeting my dog’s needs without risk to anyone.

I have agreed today with my local police officers, and in consultation and agreement with my vet, that should at any point a warrant be issued to seize my dog, the vet will attend and euthanise the dog rather than allowing him to be seized. He has lost 5kg just having to wear a muzzle for two hours a day—can you imagine his stress levels for 9 months in police kennels? That would simply be a life which was not worth living in terms of his welfare.”

Like tens of thousands of dogs in England and thousands in Scotland, that is a dog that has not been a problem.

At the committee’s meeting on 21 February, when it discussed the earlier order, the minister said that

“selling, gifting and exchanging an XL bully dog will be prohibited and the loophole will be removed.”

I focus on the word “loophole”. If the loophole has been closed, because the Government thought that there would be an invasion of thousands of XL bully-type dogs to Scotland, why are we proceeding with the second phase, given the small number that is causing concern as opposed to the large number that is not—which we estimate in Scotland to be 5,000-plus—and on which draconian restrictions are being put, as well as on their owners?

At that previous meeting, Fulton MacGregor said that he thinks that

“this is very bad legislation from the UK Government ... The experts in this field clearly and consistently tell us that this legislation is bad, has a high risk of not working, is a knee jerk, and is ill thought out”.

The minister said:

“The definition that was determined by DEFRA is that the male has to be 20 inches in height and the female has to be 19 inches. Therefore, an XL bully that was 16 or 17 inches would not have to wear a muzzle and lead.”

That is complete nonsense.

I will be brief, but I think that it is important to put this on the record, because Parliament is not getting to discuss the issue. One point about the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is that it does not apply in a private residence, whereas the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 does. Many attacks take place in a garden or in a home. Jim Wilson said at the previous meeting that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 “has many opponents” and that the Government is

“seriously considering the opportunities to strengthen and enhance the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010.”

He went on to say:

“in the engagement that we have had with animal welfare stakeholders, they have, quite fairly, raised a number of concerns about the ethical and practical concerns that vets are facing. In certain cases, they are dealing with dogs that they might deem to be perfectly well-behaved, not aggressive and perfectly healthy. I appreciate that the numbers are not huge, but a high number of dogs are nonetheless being euthanised.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 21 February 2024; c 3, 11, 23-24.]

If the committee agrees to the order, you will be saying—that is, some of you but not all of you—that it is not good law but you will nevertheless push it through. Dogs that may or may not be XL bully types—an owner has to decide—will be neutered and might be euthanised, and the Government will pay for that. That is just wrong.

Russell Findlay said that he believes

“that legislation is needed, and urgently, because we need to address the risk to public safety. We all agree that we need to address that. Where we disagree is on how we do that. In the past four weeks, Police Scotland officers have had to shoot dead two dogs in the street, both of which”—

I underline this point—

“may or may not have been XL bullies”.

He went on:

“I know that there is an issue with definition, but if members look at the Bully Watch UK material, which is widely available, they will see that a lot of it goes some way towards explaining that.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 21 February 2024; c 40.]

However, that is the problem. He talked about two dogs, when there are thousands of such dogs in Scotland. He said that those dogs may or may not have been XL bullies, which is a point that Pauline McNeill raised. That is the problem with tackling a breed or a breed type, rather than the actions of the owner who is in control of the dog.

Minister, you had the opportunity not to pursue this second order. The loophole has been closed, so I cannot accept that we should proceed with the order.

I was not going to move my motion, because I know that the committee will agree to the instrument and that it will be pushed through, even though members have reservations. However, as parliamentarians, we have an obligation that I do not think should be taken lightly. We are able to vote on legislation, which is why I will move the motion. I want every committee member who agrees with the instrument to have their name beside what I call absolutely poor legislation that demonises owners and will lead to misery for many dogs.

I move,

That the Criminal Justice Committee recommends that the Dangerous Dogs (Compensation and Exemption Schemes) (Scotland) Order 2024 (SSI 2024/70) be annulled.