Seòmar agus comataidhean

What you have said is very helpful, Mr Clarke. I am clear about your misconduct complaint, your retirement, the timescales and the delays: it is easy to work out what you think is wrong there. Other than that, is there anything in the bill that you think would have helped your situation, or is there anything missing from the bill that would have made the difference and that would have stopped the ball rolling before the case reached the criminal court two or three years on?

Thank you very much.

Christine Grahame is absolutely right that some of the Parliament’s procedures are not satisfactory, and this is one of those. I would have preferred other members to have had a say but, as committee members, we have to take responsibility for the process.

I agree with Russell Findlay that the process has been difficult, because we have had to come to quite a quick conclusion on a widely reported public safety issue. When we began the process, the dogs concerned were XL bully types, but we still do not know whether the dogs in some cases were XL bullies.

Christine Grahame is right to raise those points. I am slightly nervous, but I do not think that the committee has much choice. I think that there is a loophole. I suppose that the minister is saying something that may be proven right in time. There may well be a loophole but, if the founding legislation is not quite what it should be, we are building on something that might be flawed. We cannot know that now, which puts us in an unfortunate and difficult position because we have to make a decision today.

Christine made a point about scrutiny. There are some areas of the Parliament’s work that are so substantial that they are not really suitable for SSIs, but we are stuck with a process that was decided some time ago and not by us.

Good morning. You have probably answered most of the questions that I had in relation to the exemption—the issue has been well covered. I suppose that the fact that the dog owner can go on holiday for up to 30 days in a 12-month period makes sense.

As you have said, minister, the principle behind the legislation is to prohibit the breeding and selling of XL bully dogs. Is the thinking that, in time, there will be no XL bully dog owners in Scotland?

I will ask a question that was put to you last time, and which I am sure that Christine Grahame asked, too. What you have said might be the principle behind the legislation, but, given the definition, the breeders of XL bully dogs might just breed slightly smaller dogs. Will you have to reconsider how the legislation is framed at that point?

There have been some pretty horrible attacks. With regard to the one that was mentioned at the previous committee meeting, the last time that I checked, the breed of the dog had still not been identified. It might not even be possible to identify the breed. The intention is to capture a breed of dog that is seen to be more prone to attacking and to end its existence, but in some high-profile incidents, we have not established that they involved XL bully dogs. You might well give me the same answer that you have just given, but have you given any thought to that?

Does that mean that, in some cases, there is just no way of knowing? I do not know whether there are any tests that can be done—forgive my ignorance.

It would be helpful to get some more information on the implications of some of the clauses. I have a question about the “various bodies” that would authorise access to driver licence records. It would be helpful if the names of those bodies were set out, so that we knew what the provision actually meant.

I would have liked to see the note from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee before today. The timing is a little tight and I think that we need more information on the bill before I would be content to support the legislative consent memorandum. I have no objection to asking the minister to come to speak to us—that would depend on what other members think—but I would certainly not be content to sign this off without fully understanding the implications of the clauses containing provisions that require the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

On the face of it, it looks like clause 14 of the bill as introduced, concerning corporate liability, would include senior managers, which is quite a broad term. Who is regarded as being a senior manager? I am sure that that has all been considered and worked out, but what has been put before us is light on detail, and I would not be content to sign off on it without having a full understanding of it.

A question sprang to mind when I was listening to Russell Findlay. We already have specific legislation on child grooming. It would be helpful to know whether there is duplication there from the Scottish Government’s point of view. Criminal law is normally a matter for this Parliament, unless it is international organised crime. We need to be clear about why we would need offences that would be an aggravation of an existing offence. We need to know whether that gives the Crown the option of how the offence is charged, if you follow me. That may seem simple on the face of it, but devolved competence normally allows Scotland to decide how it wishes to proceed. I am sure that there are very good reasons for that, but we need to ask the question, because we certainly do not want any confusion about this.

Good morning. Is the purpose of the SSIs that we are considering purely to close the loophole?

I was listening to what Jim Wilson was saying and trying to understand the situation. There has already been discussion with the UK Government about XL bully policy—that is what the DEFRA talks were about. I want to establish exactly why you have introduced the instrument now. Is it simply because, when you were having those discussions, you saw a loophole and you want to close it? Is that right?