Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will challenge you on that, minister. I am not laying the fault with you, but we are replicating something that is wrong in England. It is bad law there, and it will be bad law here, if it comes into force.

We cannot unravel that, because the kernel of the issue is the question of what an XL bully is, and nobody in this room can actually give a clear and simple definition. That is key to any legislation, but particularly when you are taking away people’s rights and criminalising them and when animals are going to be put down or dumped. However, although there are many XL bully dogs in Scotland, this is for the few and not the many.

The definition is my huge concern. The law in England is so bad, because the definition is not clear. It is bad law and it cannot, I hope, come into force in Scotland.

Oh, I am pressing it—of course I am pressing it.

I should declare an interest as the author of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which was about public protection and intervening early.

Before I give my reasoning for lodging a motion to annul, I emphasise that, like everyone around the table, I am horrified by dog attacks, on people or on other animals. That is not in question. However, the proposed legislation is not the answer. The lines of questioning that I have heard from members around the table demonstrate that it is bad law. I say—kindly, I hope—to Sharon Dowey that it is bad law in England and Wales. I am not getting into constitutional debates—I am interested in law.

If I get passionate about this, it is not passion without purpose—it is passion for this Parliament delivering good legislation. What I have heard from members around the table—maybe not from all, but from many—shows that the order is not good legislation, because at the very centre of it is something that no one can define: an XL bully dog. It is defined in paragraphs—whether that is guidance or not, we do not know—and it is so complicated that it cannot be amended.

If there is one thing that I have learned about bad law, it is that it cannot be amended. I take members back to the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012. Unfortunately, I have been here so long that I remember all these things. The 2012 act was bad law from start to finish, and it started out on exactly the same trajectory as this order, as it was brought forward with sensationalism and haste. At least the evidence on it was challenged by the lead committee, which I convened. At the end of the day, that legislation was repealed.

I am looking at all the things in the legislation before us that are wrong, but the big thing is definition. Katy Clark is quite right: law must be clear. It must be clear for individuals, for the courts and for everybody. This order is a boorach—there is nothing clear about it at all.

What is bothering me is that we will almost have public policing as a result. I have listened carefully to find out how many cases have come up in Scotland, but nobody knows. We are looking on social media and in the newspapers. The day that I take evidence for legislation based on social media and newspaper headlines is the day that I pack in caring.

What we have to look at is this. Was there a better way to do it? Yes, there was—the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 should have been tightened up ages ago. There may have been other ways to deal with any dogs being brought up to Scotland; I do not know. The minister has not said anything about that, although perhaps she may do. We might have looked to licensing. We do not have a national microchipping database—I have gone on about that for ages. If we had such a database, we could identify dogs that were not indigenous to Scotland.

Another problem—as if that were not bad enough—concerns the unintended consequences. I know that Fulton MacGregor is very unhappy about the legislation, but he is pinning his hopes—as perhaps Labour committee members are—on the fact that if Labour were to get in at Westminster, it might repeal the England and Wales legislation. In the meantime, however, what will have happened? Dogs will have been put down, others will have been neutered and people will have been persecuted.

The same social media that provides the very flimsy evidence for the number of dogs that are coming up to Scotland will be a hotspot for people reporting others: “Ah’ve seen ma neighbour”—or such and such—“and they’ve got an XL bully dog.”

People do not talk about types—they talk about XL bully dogs. If that is set in stone, they will be reporting neighbours, and what will happen? The police—who, for heaven’s sake, have enough on their plates—will be sent out to measure a dug with a tape measure to see if it complies with the conformation standard that has been invented by DEFRA. If the police then say, “Well, we think it’s an XL bully” in accordance with the standard, the person may say, “Oh, but no—I know my dog’s history. It’s actually a cross between a boxer and a Staffie. I know, because I knew the mother and father of the dog.” There we go—it will go to court. There will be court cases, and I know what the court will say about this legislation and this Parliament—and about this committee, by the way.

I accept, minister, that you have been pushed into a corner, but sometimes when that happens, the thing to do is not simply to throw your hands in the air. I know what the position is, but we need to do something different. In my view, to annul the order would send a message to good people south of the border who know that the legislation is rubbish and that it will be very painful.

At the end of the day, if someone is an unscrupulous breeder or owner—most people are not, but there are a few—they will simply say, “Okay—I’ll breed a dog that can be a fighting status symbol that is not 20 inches”—or 19 inches or whatever—“I’ll make it 18 inches, so it doesn’t comply.” That is what is so stupid about this legislation.

I have been a quarter of a century in this Parliament—people might say that it is a quarter of a century too long. I have endured so much poor legislation, such as the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, from its hasty start to its ignominious finish, and I am watching this one. That is why I am so angry about it: all of you who are sitting around the table know that this order is not good legislation.

I say to the committee, “My goodness—this is radical stuff.” I say to members that I hope that, if you came in here with your mind made up to rubber stamp the order, and that, despite all the concerns and difficulties that you have mentioned, you will still rubber stamp it in the hope that something can be done later, you do not do so.

I hope that you will annul the instrument, and look at a different way to deal with the number of dogs—we do not know what that number is—that are coming up from England. You can stop dogs being dumped and put down, and stop the persecution of good people who have dogs and who have lived happily with their neighbours for years, and whose neighbours might now say, “Hey, you’ve got an XL bully, hen—ah’m no living next door to you any more.” That is the kind of thing happens when you do stupid things with legislation.

I ask you to annul the instrument, and I ask the committee to come back and consider a better way forward, in the interests—I say to Russell Findlay—of public safety, which is paramount. That should involve legislation that is just, and which does not demonise a breed—we do not know what that breed is—or demonise owners who are good people. That is my position.

I move,

That the Criminal Justice Committee recommends that the Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (Scotland) Order 2024 (SSI 2024/31) be annulled.

And then what? Apart from just reporting, is there any remedy? Can you say that you are not prepared to accept the situation? Is there a nuclear option?

I have a short technical question, convener. What remedies are open to the committee if there is a breach of the 28-day requirement? Can you just complain about it, or is there anything else that is open to you to do?

Thank you.

How many questions have you got? It would be nice to know that in advance.

Bear with me while I find the right place in my papers.

The focus of section 8 is on the first owner being a Scottish resident at the time of wanting to advertise sale or transfer. At that point, the litter would have to be registered. I come back to the difficulty of a situation in which the puppy is coming from abroad. Before we even get to that point, people should have checked by seeing the puppy with its mother. That is the key.

I have mentioned Romania and southern Ireland; with puppies that have been bred outwith Scotland and imported, it is necessary to have seen the puppy with its mother. I know that there are criminal ways in which people try to get round that, such as by having a false bitch with the puppy, but that is key, in the first instance. If someone who wants to acquire a puppy thinks that there is something amiss, because the puppy is not registered, they have not seen a registration for it or they have not seen it with its mother, alarm bells should be ringing. If they think, “This is not fit—there’s something wrong here,” they should not proceed or should make further inquiries.

No.

That is right.