 everybody. Good morning, and welcome to the 13th meeting of the criminal justice committee in 2024. We have no apologies this morning, and we are joined by Christine Grahame MSP. I welcome Christine Grahame to the meeting. Ireaming on business is consideration of the following negative instruments. The dangerous dogs compensate and exemption schemes Scotland order of 2024 and I refer members to paper one. Felly, rydw i'n gweithio i'r gweithio, Siobhan Brown, Minister for Victims and Community Safety, and Mr Jim Wilson, the licensing team leader of the criminal justice division at the Scottish Government. I remind everyone present that we have already discussed the principles of the approach that is being followed by the Scottish Government in relation to exiled bully dogs on 21 February. The session should therefore be on the detail of the compensation and exemption scheme set out in the SSI that we are considering today. I invite the minister to speak to the SSI minister. Good morning, convener, and good morning, committee. I welcome the opportunity to give evidence to the committee on this secondary legislation. As the committee is aware, the Scottish Government is taking a two-stage approach for new safeguards in relation to exiled bully dogs. The order that the committee is considering today is a second of two separate pieces of secondary legislation on exiled bully dogs. Committee members will recall that I appeared before the committee on 21 February to give evidence on the first piece of secondary legislation, the dangerous dog designated Types Scotland order 2024. The first stage of the new rules as set out in the first order subsequently came into force on 23 February 2024. This means that exiled bully owners must now ensure that their dogs are muzzled and on a lead when in a public place. Breeding, selling, gifting or exchanging exiled bully dogs is also now prohibited. I would stress however that it remains entirely legal to own an exiled bully dog. This second order that we are discussing today establishes the exemption process for owners and rehoming centres who wish to keep their dogs and adhere to the new safeguards for the long term beyond 31 July 2024. The order also provides for a compensation scheme for those exiled bully owners who unfortunately decide not to keep their dogs. In addition, the order ensures that the historic need for tattooing is not needed as a means of identifying dogs where an exemption is sought. Owners of exiled bully type dogs will have from 1 April 2024 to 31 July 2024 to seek exemption for their dogs from the Scottish Government. From 1 August 2024 it will be an offence to own an exiled bully dog without an exemption or without having applied for an exemption. Let me be clear. Any responsible exiled bully dog owner who wishes to keep their dog can do so. What they need to do is to seek an exemption and agree to adhere to the exemption conditions. As we approach the go live date of 1 April for the exemption and compensation schemes, I advise that full details will be published on the Scottish Government and mygov.scot websites on the first date when applications can be submitted. We do not want to publish this before then just to avoid any early applications that would then become invalid. We understand the concerns expressed by dog owners about the impact that these new controls may have on dogs. I can assure the committee that the Scottish Government takes animal welfare very seriously and it is committed to the highest possible welfare standards. My officials consulted with various stakeholders, including welfare organisations throughout the development of the new safeguards, which are part of the signing up to the exemption. I have also committed to regular monthly engagements with dog control coalition, which members include the Scottish SPCA, the Dogs Trust and the British Veterinary Association to ensure that everything is being done to implement the new safeguards in the best possible way. My officials also meet with the dog control coalition on a weekly basis and also meet with COSLA, Police Scotland and the local authorities on a fortnightly basis through the Scottish Government-led Implementation Forum. I'll end my remarks there, convener, and I'm happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. Okay, thank you very much minister. We'll now just move straight to questions and invite members to come in if they wish to ask any questions. I think that maybe the minister has already answered my question when she was doing her opening statement there. It was actually on exemptions and how you would be granted the certificate. My questions are originally where will the Scottish Government be publishing exemption information soon to maximise the amount of time dog owners have to apply for an exemption and consider their next steps, under what circumstances will the Scottish Government grant a certificate of exemption and what information is required. When you did your opening statement there you actually said anyone who wants to keep their Excel bully can do so. Is it just a formality or will there be people who will not be allowed to keep an Excel bully? Is it the dog or the person? Anybody that has an Excel bully that wants to keep their dog, and as I said previously, when I was at committee I think there was 61,000 that applied in England and Wales and only 200 decided not to keep their dog. So vast majority of dog owners, responsible dog owners want to keep their dog. So if you've got an Excel bully dog and you want to keep it, you just have to apply for an exemption. So on the website we'll go live on the 1st of April and it's very, very clear and I know there's also going to be a video that will be going out on social media that shows the process. So it's very user friendly. So you said a bit responsible dog owners there. Is there any circumstances that you can think of where somebody wouldn't be given an exemption? Not that I'm aware of. No. And Mr Jim, have you, is it that in England and Wales? I mean the vast majority of applications that have been granted through DEFRA for applications have come in have been approved with no issues. I think the challenges that DEFRA officials have had is that sometimes relevant information is not being provided. So, for example, confirmation that an insurance policy has been taken out might be an issue in terms of the certificate of exemption not being granted immediately and I'm aware that in relation to outstanding applications in England and Wales, like I said at the first evidence session on the first SSI, there are a number of cases where there's a backlog that's going to be built up that UK Government officials are still working through. Their controls came into full play on the 1st of February, so it's just to give a flavour of some of the challenges that UK Government are experiencing in relation to exemption applications. As the minister said, there is a number of requirements that need to be complied with or very quickly run through them, but ultimately the certificate of exemption requirements and this information will be on the Scottish Government channels insist that or insurers should say that the owner has to keep the dog at the same address as the certificate holder except for a maximum of 30 days, notify any change of address, including changes within a 30-day period, notify if the dog's death maintains suitable for party insurance for the lifetime of the dog and ensure that the dog is muzzled on a lead in a public place and keep the dog in sufficiently secure conditions to prevent the dog's escape and provide access for reading of the dog's microchip upon request by a police officer or authorised local authority officer. We expect that owners will comply with those conditions, but there may be some queries that might need to be investigated further if there are any gaps in terms of what the requirements actually are, but so far vast majority of applications that were issued in England and Wales were as a result of application forms being completed on time and correctly. Do we know how much the insurance will cost for the dog owners? The information that we are going to put on the Scottish Government website in my give points towards the option for owners to consider is the Dog Trust companion club, which charges £25, £12.50 if the person applying is over the age of 60. We are not saying that owners have to use the Dog Trust companion club and they may obviously have insurance already, so they have the opportunity to consider an insurance policy that is right for them, but we felt that the fairly modest cost in terms of the insurance cover that was offered by Dog Trust was worthy of promotion. The final question was that the financial memorandum does not have any money along with it, so who is going to administer the scheme and if there are any issues, will it be the police that are investigating it, or are we going to invest more money in dog wardens? The Scottish Government is going to be running the scheme off the exemption. We are in close contact with Police Scotland and local authorities in Cosra regarding any costs that might be considered, and they are getting back to us regarding that. The Scottish Government is running the scheme, not Police Scotland. I am interested to know whether there are any cross-border issues that still have to be ironed out, or are there any concerns with that? Thank you for the question. There is no current issue in Scotland in this regard. That is because, up until 31 July 2024, Excel bully owners moving to Scotland from England and Wales can continue to bring their dog with them and they can seek an exemption under the Scottish scheme. However, that will change. As the law currently stands, if this SSI is not annulled, such owners will not be able to live in Scotland and legally own their Excel bully dog from 1 August 2024, when the new safeguards are fully in place in Scotland. The position in England and Wales is different as a safeguards regime is fully in place and has been since 1 February 2024. A person from Scotland or any other country since has no longer been able to take their Excel bully dog down to England and Wales. There is no ability down there to seek an exemption for their Excel bully dogs. Within that context, on 8 March, I wrote to the UK Government Minister for Biosecurity, Animal Health and Welfare, Mr Douglas Miller, to raise the issue of cross-border movement on Excel bully dogs within the nation of the Inner Kingdom. To date, I have not received a response, but during engagement with DEFRA officials and representatives from devolved administrations, the Scottish Government has previously raised the issue of the validility of the exemption certificates when an owner of an Excel bully dog who lives in Scotland then moves to England and Wales for work or for any other reason. It is important to ensure that law-abiding citizens and dogs who have complied with all their requirements to legally retain their dogs as a consequence of the new safeguards that have come into place are not unduly affected by the exemption regime rules when they wish to move to Scotland or Wales or vice versa. I am keen to work with the UK Government to look at collectively addressing the issue in a consistent and fair way and to avoid a situation where the owner would be required to dispose of their dog or run the risk of being criminalised for the events of being in possession of an Excel bully dog without an exemption. It is on-going, but it is one of the issues again when the legislation came in and unintended consequences that were not brought out that we are raising with the UK Government. I hope that they will be in contact and we will resolve this issue. Good morning. I actually think that you have answered most of the questions that I had in relation to the exemption, but I think that that is probably well covered. The dog owner can go on holiday up to 30 days in a 12-month period, so that makes sense. The principles behind the legislation, as you said, minister, are prohibition on the breeding and the selling of Excel bully dogs. Is the thinking that eventually there would not be any owners in Scotland of an Excel bully dog? That would be the intention of the discussion. I think that the question that was put last time to you, I am sure that Christine Grahame might have asked the same question, but I was interested in asking the same question, so that is the principle, but the breeders of Excel bully dogs might just breed those dogs slightly smaller within the definition, so would you have to come back then or reconsider the framing of the legislation at that point? I think that I said to the First Committee as well that we are in this position that we never wanted to be in, and I don't ever want us to be in this position again moving forward with another breed. As we deal with the Excel bully dog situation, I am considering what needs to be done through legislation that we are not in this position, because the Scottish Government, as we know it, is indeed not breed. I know that we are diverging away from it in this particular case, but it is something that we did not want to do. I would not want to be in a position moving forward in six months' time or a year's time that there is another breed and we are doing this again. There has been some pretty horrible incidents of attacks, and one thing that was mentioned at the last committee, the last time I checked, I still haven't identified the breed of the dog, and it may not be possible to identify the breed of the dog. I suppose that you might be giving me the same answer that you did there, but it just seems that if the intention is to capture a breed of dog, that seems to be more prone to attacking, and so you are trying to end the existence of that breed. However, in some of the high-profile incidents, we have not established that it is an exiled bully dog, and I wonder if you have given any thought to that. Even when we started these conversations with stakeholders back in October last year, that was one of their main concerns that they were highlighting to me as we move forward with the definition, and as you know in the presence of exiled bully dog type, there is the definition as such. Although there is, as we know, the UK Government did put a definition on their website, which is where people have to go to define it. They have got the height and the width of the body and things like that that they can determine whether or not to put the exiled bully dogs, but for the normal Joe Blow in the street, it might be very difficult to know. Does that mean that, in some cases, there is just no way of knowing? I don't know if there are any tests. Forgive me for laggons. I do know maybe about a DNA test that I did hear about, but I am not sure that it is viable for every exiled bully owner to be doing it. Just to stress that, ultimately, the exemption process is owner-led, so they have to then obviously look at the confirmation standard that is already published on the Scottish Government website. There will be cases, through my direct conversations with animal welfare stakeholders, around—in some cases, there might be an uncertainty as to whether the actual dog in question could be a suspected exiled bully type dog. They have not frequently, but on occasion, brought in subject matter experts to do an assessment. The cost of that assessment would be £250 to £300, so it is a one-off assessment. I suppose that learning from the approach in England and Wales, where, again, it is a owner-led process, the position that we have adopted is to ensure that it is a precautionary approach. One of the key characteristics of the confirmation standard is that, around the height of the dog, so 20 inches if it is for a male, 51 centimetres, 19 inches for a female at 48, if the dog does not meet the minimum height requirement, there is no assessment that is required. However, from my personal experience, when I have spent time with local authority dog warrants and police, I have seen a vet undertake an assessment of—it was not an exiled bully dog, it was an alleged pit bull type. Of course, they have just gone through a whole series of checks, but ministers are right that there might be some testing that could be done to try and determine the type. It is not a recognised breed of dog, and we recognise that it is challenging. I can just ask members to confine questions to the SSI being considered today. I know that there are a lot of elements to this issue, but just in the spirit of time. I have a couple of questions today that come from the Blue Cross briefing. Pauline McNeill has already raised one issue that the briefing outlined, and that was in relation to the definition, so I will not ask about that. The two areas that I want to ask about are the veterinary sector, if those who do not apply for an exemption minister are confident that the capacity is there to perform the new training. Have you had a think about the impact that this might have on vets and their staff in relation to what might be a healthy dog? The British Veterinary Association is members of the dog control coalition. I have been meeting them regularly since last October. One of the things is that, as we meet them, we are listening to the concerns. That specifically has not been raised at those concerns about capacity or breaking point, but there are several issues that have been raised with ourselves. We are working with the coalition as we move forward through the implementation group as well. A final question, minister. It is on a similar theme for those who do not seek the exemption and maybe look at the rehoming options. What indication do you get there about the challenges that kennels are facing in terms of capacity, such as, for example, Bedley Gardens in my constituency, that I mentioned last time? Is there any additional support that can be offered to those organisations going forward? Unfortunately, you cannot rehome after this stage, after the 23rd of February, but I know that, regarding kenneling, that has been raised with my officials and the meetings that I have attended. I know that my officials, as well as the implementation group that has been set up with Police Scotland and local authorities, have set up a working group so that we can work closely with organisations such as yours in your constituency to learn about all the issues and see how we can work together moving forward. They will be able to highlight any issues that they face as we move forward with the legislation. A very quick question. It does not relate specifically to SSI, but it relates to something that the minister said in her evidence that she believes in that, not breed yet, legislation is breed specific. I think that this is causing people some confusion as to how you can hold to opposing opinions at the same time, which is your position. My position is that, as a Scottish Government, it is the deed, not the breed, as Mr Finlay is well aware that we are in this position because this legislation was announced last September with no notice of the Scottish Government. If these dogs are not inherently a problem, what problem would it be if they are coming to Scotland if it is not an issue of breed? I personally believe that it is up to the owners to be responsible owners. You do not believe in this legislation. I do believe in this legislation because we are having to move forward as you were highlighting last year that the Scottish Government should be moving forward. Yes, we believe in it and we support the legislation, but a few things are deed, not breed. John Swinney is trying to interrupt me here if I could just ask the minister a question. It is really not John Swinney's role as the convener of this committee. Members, if you can finish asking your question, and then we will move on. Yes, but this is directly relating to the evidence that the minister already gave and it is pertinent to the entire reason why we are sitting here talking about this. As I said, in this circumstance we are deviating away from that a bit under the position that we have found ourselves in from the UK bringing in this rushed legislation, but moving forward the Scottish Government will still commit to deed, not breed. Minister, I wonder if I can just come in with a question. Obviously, I know that you are very well aware that a number of owners of Excell Bully Dogs and others have expressed concern about the legislation, how it will work in practice and a particular focus has been the welfare of animals. It seems to me that the SSIs and how the new policies work out in practice could potentially be considered by the Government consulting with others in a couple of years' time, so in other words, looking at some close legislative review of the legislation, is that something that the Scottish Government would be willing to consider moving forward? Yes. We have found ourselves in a position that we never wanted to be in and I think that it has highlighted what we have gone through in the last couple of months. It is a very emotive issue and I know that there are very polarised opinions on this. As I have already reiterated, we do not want to be in this position and again, to do that, I think that we really need to look at legislation moving forward and reform. Thank you, that is helpful. Okay, can I maybe ask if Christine Grahame would like to come in? I am not going to ask a question and do you wish me to proceed with my question? That is fine, thank you. Any other members want to speak? Sorry, yes. Mr Doris. I had some specific questions that I wanted to cut across to Ms Grahame. Okay, dangerous thing, but never mind. I have always had the opportunity to ask a question. So just to confirm then, Christine Grahame, would you like to ask any questions at this point? No, I am not going to ask questions. I am just going to submit. Well Doris, would you like to ask anything? I formally apologise for being late to the committee before the family circumstances. My apologies to everyone present. Also apologies if there is a degree of duplication. I hope that there is not a clear list. I wanted to ask about exemptions. So within the statutory instrument that there are some exemptions, so if I have understood it correctly minister, so if someone passes away, a certificate of exemption can be transferred under certain circumstances and there is still a re-homing exemption for puppies up to 31 July. So the Government has conceded that there are certain circumstances where exemptions can be brought in. I know we had a constructive meeting, even if it was ultimately not fruitful for myself minister. Can you just put on record why the minister believes it wasn't possible to bring in an exemption for if someone moves house through no fault of their own and is restrictive as to whether they can have any pet or any dog whatsoever. So it's not even specific to Excel bullies. They're not able to gift or transfer a certificate of exemption to another individual, which I think is pretty unfair. What is the Government's position in relation to that? Yes, thanks minister. We've discussed this at length. I think one of the things was that the unintended consequences was if somebody died. So that wasn't in the legislation in the 31st of January in England or Wales. So that was something that has come in later that we've been able to pick up on moving forward to include in our legislation. And as there are a few things as we go through this process that have been highlighted and this is one of them. My understanding specifically for that with the Dangerous Dogs Act is to legislate that you would need primary legislation, not through secondary legislation, but maybe Jim can just go about that. Thank you, Mr Doris for the question. I've just reflected on recent discussions that we've had around two issues. One is in relation to the challenges that potentially may have been faced. And I appreciate that you've been able to provide an example of a concern around housing and what that might mean for exo-billy dog owners. But we did actually put out some target communication to a range of social housing organisations and a couple of private housing organisations just to stress how the new safeguards would actually work in practice. And ultimately, we recognise that owners will have to comply with the exemption requirements. If they're following the process, they will be law-abiding. There are no issues in terms of they're not going to break in any rules under the 1991 legislation. So far, the communication that we sent out a few weeks ago, I've not received anything that's not in concerns from any actual individual members on the relation to housing, but I recognise that there may be certain, in certain cases, owners of exo-billy dogs that might be a little bit worried because they're not sure how their tenancy agreement might be impacted upon. But that boils down to the challenges around policies that are being set by housing association in relation to animals. And there may be some cases where they might have a policy that a tenant might not be allowed to have any type of dog, cat, whatever. So on the housing point, just to stress, we have contacted a number of organisations to set out how the new safeguards will work in practice. But in relation to the point around the challenges of somebody becoming seriously unwell in its over a 30-day period, there is no legislative powers available to address that through secondary regulations. So that would actually require a need to do it through primary legislation. I have raised the issue with the UK Government as well to try and get a sense of, well, is it a big issue? They have a small number of cases where there has been concerns about so what does this really mean if somebody is simply unable to look after the dog? So, again, we need to be mindful that this is policy that's being developed at rapid pace. There are some unintended consequences that we're having to grapple with going forward. But, yeah, Mr Doris, you raised a really good point in relation to housing and the issue around kind of long-term illness as well. Well, I wish we were in this position minister. I think you're confirming that even if the policy of the Scottish Government was to move further, we're further exemptions that require primary legislation. So it wouldn't be possible anyway using this mechanism. Can I therefore ask the minister if there was a suitable legislative vehicle going through the Parliament? I would imagine that this would be a relatively simple boat on to another piece of legislation just to give the provisions under secondary legislation to go back and review exemptions. If such a vehicle was to come through the Parliament, is that something that the Scottish Government would consider? That is where I do think there is a need for reform and dog legislation. So, yes, everything would be considered moving forward. Both the short-term and the long-term reforms. Yes, we could look at that. One final question. So compensation is available to exiled bully dog owners, but there's a cut-off deadline I think of the 30th of September. If an exiled bully dog owner wasn't able to look after their dog for any reason after that point and had complied with the legislation and did have the exemption forum, should they not have been taken to compensation after that date? I think at the moment because the legislation is just new, I don't even think we're in that circumstance in England and Wales yet. I don't know if that's been considered or raised at the working group with deaf profit. It's certainly something hard to pick up. The UK Government officials whenever, obviously, about exemption scheme is not opened yet but will go live on the 1st of April. The reason to allow people the chance to have that window of opportunity, if I can call it that, to consider whether they might want to pursue compensation was done to ensure that people have adequate time to make that very, very difficult decision. So theoretically, if someone in October has their exemption certificate and has to give up their dog for whatever reason through no fault of their own, right now they would not qualify for compensation with the Government's open-minded to perhaps reviewing that. We can look into it most definitely. Okay, thank you very much indeed. So I think that completes our evidence-taking on the SSI. So we'll move on and our next item of business is to consider a motion to annul the dangerous dogs compensation and exemption schemes Scotland order of 2024. So a motion to annul has been lodged in the name of Christine Graham and having had the opportunity now to question the minister on this SSI. I'm now going to invite the committee to dispose of the motion to annul. So can I invite Christine Graham to move motion number S6M-12516 in her name and make any brief additional comments she wishes to make? I've been deleting like mad so that I can try to get what I want to say and thank you very much convener. I speak to and move the motion referred to in my name and also put in the record that I think the minister has been put in an invidious position notwithstanding that. I think it's my duty as a parliamentarian to indicate where I have grave concerns about the quality of this legislation. So I think it's important to consider the consequences to date of the XL bully type regulations on this particular instance, the compensation exemption schemes as impacted in England and Wales because we can see what's happened. Since the start of this on ban on XL bully type dogs, there have been 55,000 registers according to DEFRA and 61,000 applications. That gives you an idea of the size of the issue. Now, I accept these numbers are staggering and as a result of some horrendous attacks, though fewer number, 55,000 dogs plus will be neutered, muzzled and some put down. To date, 300 have been put down. These were not dogs that were subject to any criminal proceedings. These would be healthy dogs that were put down. And the distress to owners is considerable. DEFRA has suggested a deregistration scheme. That is because we've heard issues about the definition ably described by Pauline McNeill about if your dog is just an inch shorter than the 20 inches for a male XL bully type dog. It doesn't comply. And it's the owner that has to do all the work, nobody else. So DEFRA is suggesting a deregistration scheme but they haven't actually said how and when it will work. And of course, by that time, your dog is probably neutered. It may be muzzled for months. So this is the clumsiness of this legislation. As I said, the onus is on the owner and they're searching online for cac cane corsoes, rupvillers, German shepherds, stafager and even jacked rustles to try and work out what they have. Is their dog, have their dog to comply? Now the BVA made it plain to DEFRA last November and I quote, we are extremely concerned by DEFRA's assertion that there is sufficient veterinary capacity to effectively manage the ban. And further, it is also vital that additional support is provided to owners to help them type their dog. They also ask for an extension of the neutering deadline which they've been granted. So there's huge concerns about animal welfare from DEFRA itself which compiled the definition which I hope you've read because it goes to many paragraphs. I thought I'd quote from a dog owner. I believe I've lost all my rights to make appropriate welfare choices for my dog to treat his chronic stress. He's lost his freedom simply because he's two inches taller than another dog and any day of the week the police might knock on my door to arrest me if I choose to meet my dog's basic welfare needs in a completely safe way. I'd be facing six months in prison simply for meeting my dog's needs without risk to anyone. I've agreed today with my local police officers and in consultation an agreement with my vet that should at any point a warrant be issued to seize my dog the vet will attend and euthanise the dog rather than allow him to be seized. He's lost five kilograms just having to wear a muzzle for two hours a day. Can you imagine the stress levels for nine months in police kennels? That would simply be a life which was not worth living in terms of his welfare. This is a dog that's not been a problem. Like tens of thousands in England and thousands in Scotland. Further on I quote the minister from a meeting on 21 February. Selling and gifting this was the first regulation Selling, gifting and exchanging an XL bully dog will be prohibited and the loophole will be removed. I focus on loophole. My question is if the loophole is closed because they thought to be an invasion of thousands of XL-type bullies to Scotland why we proceeding with the second phase given the small number causing concern as opposed the large number of which we estimate Scotland to be over 5,000 plus and the draconian restriction being put upon them and their owners. I quote from Fulton MacGregor at the last meeting. I think this is a very bad legislation from the UK Government. Further quote the experts in this field clearly and consistently tell us that this legislation is bad has a high risk of not working is a knee jerk and is ill thought out and the minister the definition that was determined by Beffra is that the male has to be 20 inches in height the female to be 19 inches. Therefore an XL bully that was 16 or 17 inches would not have to wear a muzzle and lead. I mean this is nonsense this is complete nonsense I'll be very brief but I think it's important to put this in the record because Parliament's not getting to discuss this. Another point to be made about the dangerous dogs act it doesn't apply in the private residence many attacks take place in a garden or in a home this does not apply whereas the control of dogs act does and Jim Wilson said at the same meeting last of the dangerous dogs act it has many opponents and continues we are seriously considering their opportunity to strengthen in their hands the control of dogs Scotland Act 2010 and further he said in the engagement that we've had with animal welfare stakeholders they have quite fairly raised a number of concerns about the ethical and practical concerns that vets are facing in certain cases they are dealing with dogs that they might need to be perfectly well behaved not aggressive and perfectly healthy I appreciate the numbers are not huge but a high number of dogs are nonetheless being euthanised so this committee if it agrees to this is saying we in some will be saying that it's not all of you this is not good law but nevertheless we'll push it through dogs that may or may not be ex-elbuli types that an owner has to decide will be made neutral they will be and they may be euthanised and the government will pay for that this is just wrong I take Russell Finlay on I quote Russell Finlay quote I believe that legislation is needed and urgently because we need to address the risk to public safety we all agree that we need to address that where we disagree is on how we do that in the past four weeks police scotland officers have had to shoot dead two dogs in the street both of which and I underline this Mr Finlay which may or may not have been ex-elbulis I know that there is an issue with definition but if members look at the bully walks UK material which widely available they will see a lot of it goes some way towards explaining that but that Mr Finlay is the problem two dogs thousands of dogs in Scotland may or may not have been ex-elbulis as was raised by Pauline McNeill so this is the problem when you tackle a breed or a breed type and not the actions of the owner in control of the dog so minister you had the opportunity to pursue the second you had the opportunity not to pursue the second second regulations the loophole has been closed and I cannot accept that we proceed to this and I can say convener in conclusion I wasn't going to press the motion because I know that the committee is going to vote for this I know that I'm saying something and even though you've got reservations this will be pushed through but we have an obligation we have an obligation as parliamentarians we were able to vote on legislation and I don't think it should be taken lightly and that's why I'm pressing this just when every member of this committee who agrees to this do will have their name beside what I call absolutely poor legislation demonising owners and leading to misery for many dogs I press thank you very much indeed for that comprehensive overview okay can I ask if any other members would like to come in Russell Findlay yeah thank you I just think I should come in because Christine Grahame quoted me directly it wasn't clear from exactly where the quote ended but I didn't that was an entire quote I didn't truncate it well indeed but I there was no sort of obvious end quote in the telling of it I'm looking I'll amend that for you no just I genuinely didn't know where it was because the they will see a lot of it goes some way towards explaining that closed quotes right and this was from the previous getting in here it's from the OR the record I'm looking at the transcript I'm looking at differs somewhat and I want to just to question that no sorry Mr Findlay that's from the official report right well I would need to just go back and compare and contrast the two things but the point is you know we believe this legislation is necessary because public safety is paramount these dogs are maiming and killing people across the UK including in Scotland and that's why it's so important that can I respond to that please okay I'll bring you back in okay you say these dogs which are these dogs are they excel bully types or not I mean you don't know I'm looking to the convener to see if we're allowed to have a so of a whole debate about the issue of the subject to suspect we might not be well we're at the point that that we are probably more or less in debate so I'm happy to invite members to come in but I don't want I would like to avoid this just being a ping-pong discussion about what's in the official report so if and again we are here to discuss the specific SSI around exemptions and compensations indeed and with that in mind if we can confine our remarks to that that would be appreciated I won't pursue the generalities but then I'm also worth pointing out that as a committee are absolute we've got this pressing need to deal with the stage 1 report in respect of the victim film so thank you thank you Pauline McNeill I just wanted to say in part response to Christine Grahame that where I think well absolutely right that unfortunately there are some procedures in this parliament that are not satisfactory and this is one of them I would have preferred the other members had to say in this but this is the process that we as members just have to take responsibility for I do agree with Russell Finlay I think it's a difficult I think it's been a difficult one because we've had to come to quite a quick conclusion based on the issue of public safety where it was reported widely initially when we started this process that the dogs concerned were Excel bully types what has transpired and we still don't know the conclusion of some of these cases is to whether they are or whether they're not so I think your right to raise all these points and it has made me slightly nervous but I do think that the committee don't really have much of a choice because I do think that there is a loophole I suppose that what the minister is saying and you may be proven right in time and that is that it's all very well that there's a loophole but if the founding legislation in the first place isn't quite what it should be then we are building on legislation that might be flawed but we are not in a position to know that right now and I think that's unfortunate difficult position that we are in that we just have to make a decision today but I just wanted to respond particularly on the point of scrutiny Christine, I've felt that about a number of areas in the panel where they're so substantial actually that they are not really suitable for SSIs but we're kind of stuck with the process that was decided some time ago not by us thank you very much thank you any other members like to come in briefly Shandhoughie so just one final point it's really just a concern as opposed to a question my concern would be the again going back to the exemption certificate so I take the point on it's deed not breed we're talking about whether we've got responsible dog owners but I would have a concern that when I asked is there any circumstances where you would see that somebody wouldn't get an exemption it's more that if we've got somebody just now who's maybe got a criminal record or we don't think that they're capable of looking after a dog especially that type of dog why would we go and grant them an exemption certificate to actually allow them to keep the dog so that would be one safety concern I would have with it just seems a formality that people get an exemption certificate there may be people who whether it be dog wardens police neighbours would currently think that person should not have a dog there's maybe concerns about how they control the dog and we just seem it seems to me where the current legislation will be allowing them to have an exemption certificate and keep the dog Justine Ms Stowe raises a valid point from you'll know that what we have done is replicated what the UK government did implement back at the end of January and I don't think there was any provision for vetting as such dog owners applying for exemption certificates but then going back to the whole point that I keep reiterating is this is the need for like a review of dog legislation moving forward because there are some irresponsible dog owners out there that shouldn't be dog owners Okay, thank you Okay, if no other members want to come in I'll just come back to the minister actually just to ask if you would like to make any further remarks Yes and I think Christine Grahame and I know that she's very passionate about this issue and I think it just shows how polarised the views are regarding the cross between animal welfare and community safety on this particular issue and I know as I've just said to Mrs Dowey it just keeps confirming to me that we really need to be reviewing dog legislation moving forward and I know initially the first bit of that we'll be looking at the dog control Scotland act that was Christine Grahame's initially that she bought to Parliament and I am very keen to work with Christine Grahame and any other member here that wishes to be part of that moving forward Thank you, convener Thank you minister Can I therefore invite Christine Grahame to indicate whether you'd like to press or draw I'm definitely pressing I want to have members accountable for their votes Okay, thank you very much So the question is that the criminal justice committee recommends that the motion to annull the dangerous dogs compensation and exemption schemes Scotland order be agreed Are we all agreed? No Okay, we're not agreed so we will move to a vote So can I ask those in favour of annulling to raise their hands? Thank you Against annulling? Okay, I don't think there are any abstentions Okay, thank you members so there are no votes for annulling there are eight votes against annulling there are no abstentions and therefore the motion is not agreed Okay, so thank you very much that completes our deliberation of the SSI and it completes our business in public this morning I thank everyone for their attendance and we now move into private session Thank you