Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

That is a dangerous thing to do, but never mind.

Please do.

Can I respond to that, please, convener?

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.

I beg your pardon. I will amend that for you.

Mr Findlay, you say, “these dogs”. Which dogs? Are they XL bully types or not?