Chamber and committees

I am sorry, Mr Findlay, but that is from the Official Report.

You do not know.

I will definitely press it. I want members to be accountable for their votes.

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.