Seòmar agus comataidhean

How can someone have a reasonable excuse for doing something that is banned?

Perhaps the factory cat that is there to keep the number of mice down is wandering about. Cats can get stuck in the traps. They are one example.

I congratulate my colleague on securing this debate. It is a privilege to speak in it and I welcome the young carers who are here today.

There are around 1 million young carers aged 17 or under in the UK, so, if we extrapolate that based on population numbers, that means that there are approximately 100,000 young carers in Scotland, which I am sure is an underestimate.

I apologise at this stage in the debate to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and to those in the gallery, for duplicating any points that have already been made, but they deserve to be repeated.

Who is a young carer? That is a tricky question, because many who look after siblings or adults in their family would not identify themselves as carers and some might wish to keep quiet about it, perhaps out of fear of interference from social work.

Young carers usually know who they are, but, for public consumption, a young carer is someone under 18 who helps to look after a friend or someone in their family who is ill, disabled or misuses drugs or alcohol. They can have emotional as well as practical caring responsibilities and the level of single-handed responsibility that is sometimes placed on young carers would be daunting even for an adult. They do cleaning, laundry, washing, food shopping, lifting and cooking. They offer financial and practical management by withdrawing cash and paying bills. They give intimate care such as washing, bathing and giving medication. They do sibling care, looking after a brother or sister, and so on. The condition of the person that they care for is often not obvious, so people do not think that the young person needs help.

I understand why young carers do not want to be different from their peers or to draw attention to their caring role. Understandably, they might want to keep their identity at school or college separate from their caring role. They might feel that they cannot discuss it with their friends or they might not have an opportunity to share their story. They are worried about bullying and, as I have said, that the family might be split up and that they themselves might be taken into care. They might want their caring to be kept secret because they are embarrassed.

Some young carers look after more than one person and they might also have health issues of their own. Some begin giving care at a very young age, while others can become carers overnight.

I was once a teacher and the role of the class teacher is important. I looked at the Carers Trust toolkit for young carers in education, which is a resource for identifying and supporting young carers. They can be distracted by, for example, checking their phone, not for trivial reasons but to check that the person they care for is okay. They can become quiet and withdrawn. They get no time to study at home, due to a hectic or chaotic home life and they can come back to school with their homework undone. Should the teacher be taking them to task, or should they be working out what is behind it? Carers feel pressured to remain in the caring role rather than progressing into further education, which is a division of their loyalties.

There is helpful guidance for teachers on the Carers Trust Scotland website. The most important thing is that teachers should be aware. They might notice a change in the behaviour of one of their pupils and ask themselves what lies behind it. There is also young carers awareness training for teachers, which is so important for helping practitioners, student teachers and probationers know what to look out for.

One key thing is to change the narrative. We should celebrate young carers and the valuable work that they do. It is a positive thing to be a young carer, but it is important to be recognised for that.

There is a duty for local authorities, although I do not have time to go into that. Both Midlothian and Borders councils have guidance for young carers on their websites.

I will finish with this: it is time that we all came together to make a change and to create a fair future for young carers. The young carers covenant, which I have read, will do exactly that. That is why I have signed it.

I am interested in the committee’s questions. We have had to ask questions because the law itself is just a complete mess.

Minister, you talked about a loophole. I have taken on board what you said about the processes that were undertaken with the UK Government. Had there not been issues with so-called “dumping”—I put the term in quote marks because I do not like it—of XL bully-type dogs in Scotland, would you have proceeded to take a good look, as I have asked for frequently, at the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which I authored, to see whether it could be tightened up even more? I refer in particular—I hope that the committee is aware of this—to section 9 of the act, which is entitled “Dangerous or unresponsive dogs”. That section applies in the home; as you have rightly said, dog attacks also happen in the home. However, the order that has been made on the basis of the UK Government’s legislation will, if it is agreed to today, not apply in the home.

Section 9 of the 2010 act applies where an authorised officer takes the view that issuing a dog control notice would not be suitable. The case would have to go to court to let it decide whether the dog in question may or may not have to be put down or whether some other action should be taken. Section 9 also gives the owner the right of appeal, and it applies to any dog.

If there was any issue in Scotland with bully XLs, would it not have been suitable to use section 9 of the 2010 act, had your position not been that there were concerns about an excess of dogs coming up to Scotland?

In Scotland, I mean.

The order that is before us will enter into the ambit of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. What was the view of the organisations concerned on the efficacy of the 1991 act, which already lists named breeds?

But, because we are mirroring the law in England, I want to—

I will ask a final question, if I may; I hope that I get to make a little submission at the end.

The huge problem is in speaking about an “XL bully-type dog”. I have looked at the conformation paragraphs—there are paragraphs—and you would need a PhD to work out whether your dog was an XL bully type, if you did not know its history.

There is a lot of sensationalism about the issue, and I want to look at it with a cool head, for the sake of everybody. I am appalled at the attacks. However, if the order goes through, and people have to muzzle their dogs and leash them in public places, do you have concerns that members of the public will wrongly identify a dog as an XL bully type and get on to the police or the local authority and make a big stramash in the local community, and then it turns out to be nothing of the kind, or it has to be DNA tested?

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.