Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not have any further questions. However, from what you have said, it is clear that duties of candour and honesty need to be applied to everyone, including witnesses and all the police officers who are involved in any investigation. The issue is how we do that. Presumably, when they go to court, they take the oath anyway, and it is meant to be perjury if you tell lies in court. However, that is more difficult law.

That is really helpful—thank you.

That is really helpful for our understanding. I am trying to relate what you are saying to the bill and to how the bill might help. You have explained really well what happened. Once things have kicked off, it is as if there is reaffirmation and more reaffirmation until the matter gets to the top. That seems like a cultural thing.

You might then think that, at least if there is another body that is independent from the police, it could say, “Hold on a minute,” and everyone could get through it. That did not happen, however. We can perhaps check what the resource arrangements are for CAAPD, but do you happen to know whether it is a central unit or a regional one?

Good morning, Mr Clarke. I listened carefully to what the previous witness, Margaret Gribbon, said, from which I picked up that the bill before us is quite inadequate. I am trying to work out for myself, based on your very important case and evidence, what the heart of the problem is that we need to fix. That is where I am coming from.

As you said in answer to John Swinney and Russell Findlay, it seems extraordinary that someone such as you, who tried to do a good thing by preventing a suicide, has ended up in court. That is the first point.

I read your testimony, and I also read about the case in the press. It is clear that, when the case got to court, the sheriff said that there was no credible evidence against you. I have read about a few cases in which, similarly, it was down to the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence. I presume that some of those witnesses were police officers.

I have questions about CAAPD. That issue concerns me because, even if there was, let us say, corruption in the police in relation to an allegation, I would think that CAAPD—given the responsibility of the Crown Office to determine the quality of evidence—would find that, in a case such as yours, there was no case to answer.

Could you talk me through what happened in your case? Who were the accusers, and how did it get from the starting point to a police report in the first place? You are a police officer, so it is clear that, when a crime is committed, it is reported, and then a police report goes to the procurator fiscal. I am just trying to understand what happened.

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?