Who let the dogs in?
Politics Notebook #11: Humza Yousaf U-turns on an XL Bully ban after a ‘flow’ of the breed into Scotland.
The regulation of XL Bully dogs is a case study in Humza Yousaf’s dismal, cynical leadership.
On Halloween 2023, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made an order under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 designating the XL Bully a canine ‘bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose’.
The effect of that order was to ban the breeding, sale, gifting or abandonment of an XL Bully. It also prohibited owners from allowing one to be out in public without a muzzle and a lead. These measures came into effect on New Year’s Eve. In addition, from February 1, XL Bully owners will require an exemption licence, which costs £92.40 to apply for.
The ban was introduced amid public concern over attacks by the XL Bully breed on people, including children, and other dogs. There are no government statistics for dog attacks by breed but, according to a briefing from the House of Commons Library, the campaign group Bully Watch claims there have been ‘355 recorded attacks by American-Bully-type dogs in 2023 out of 841 recorded in total’.
The England and Wales ban did not apply to Scotland and, despite calls from campaigners, the Scottish Government did not appear minded to replicate the prohibition north of the border.
Less than a week ago, Humza Yousaf said that a potential ban would be kept ‘under review’ but ministers ‘don’t think it is required’, citing Scotland’s ‘very controlled and quite tight regime when it comes to the management of animals’. This regime he described as ‘quite unique in Scotland compared to other parts of the UK’.
There followed a flurry of reports of XL Bully owners moving or contemplating moving from England to Scotland to avoid the ban. The SNP’s Minister for Victims and Community Safety Siobhian Brown was ‘concerned’ to hear such reports and, in an apparent attempt to redefine chutzpah, complained that ‘the unintended consequences of the UK Government’s policy is that we’re now seeing an influx of XL Bully dogs coming to Scotland’.
This is the devolution mindset in action: it is Scotland’s right to make its own choices and Westminster’s duty to shield Scotland from the consequences of its choices.
Speaking at First Minister’s Questions on Thursday, Yousaf reversed course. He groused that the England and Wales ban — which he said wasn’t really a ban — had been introduced ‘without any consultation with the Scottish Government’.
However, he continued, the past few weeks had ‘seen a flow of XL Bully dogs to Scotland’. The First Minister appeared genuinely surprised by this. It seems behavioural economics are as alien to him as all the other branches of economics.
As a result, he told the Scottish Parliament: ‘[W]e will, in essence, replicate the legislation that exists in England and Wales here in Scotland.’
So, to recap: the Scottish Government has gone from regarding the XL Bully order as a ban that was not required in Scotland to a not-ban that is required in Scotland. If you can make sense of that, you should be turning your attentions to the Voynich manuscript.
There are a variety of views on the wisdom of the XL Bully ban, particularly given the patchy evidence on attacks by that specific breed. It would have been reasonable for the Scottish Government to take a principled stance against a ban, or to commission research before deciding what to do.
Instead, the First Minister said a ban was not required then his ministers complained about the predictable side effects of that stance. In changing course so abruptly to embrace the UK regulations wholesale, ministers have effectively confirmed that their objection was not one of principle.
That leaves us to contemplate whether this was yet another case of the Scottish Government’s differentiation strategy, under which policy is determined not by the best interests of the people of Scotland but by the SNP’s desire that Scotland be different from England in every way possible.
Ordinarily, that strategy is merely petty and tiresome. This time, it could have posed a danger to public safety.
Is this what standing up for Scotland looks like?