 The next item of business is a statement by Minister Siobhan Brown on new safeguards in relation to XL bully dogs. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Siobhan Brown up to 10 minutes, please minister. Could we have Ms Brown's microphone, please? Let me begin by explaining the reason for the Scottish Government's policy decision to introduce new safeguards in reaction to XL bully dogs. These new safeguards, which will include a requirement for XL bully dogs to be muzzled and kept on a lead in public places, will help ensure public safety. This was not a decision that has been taken lightly. It follows as a direct result of the UK Government's decision to introduce new controls on the XL bully dog for owners living in England and Wales. Such a decision was for the UK Government to make for owners in England and Wales, but the UK Government failed, however, to fully consider the knock-on impacts of that decision. As the First Minister set out last week, the UK Government failed to act to stop dog owners in England and Wales evade the new controls by bringing their dogs to Scotland. That changed the balance of whether we needed to act here in Scotland. These are exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves. It means that it is now right and proper that we replicate the controls being implemented south of the border. That does not mean that the Scottish Government is moving away from the deed-not-breed approach, recognised by dog control experts as being the most effective way of keeping communities safe. The Scottish Parliament should be proud of the legislation that has created a system of dog control notices that can be served on an owner of any dog that is out of control as a proportionate step to reduce the risk of the dog becoming dangerously out of control. Scotland is unique in this position in comparison to the rest of the UK. The Control of Dogs Scotland Act 2010 enables local authorities to serve dog control notices to deal with out-of-control dogs at an early stage. I can confirm that the Scottish Government will be looking in the medium term to work with key stakeholders and interested parties to look at potential improvements to the 2010 act that could enhance and strengthen the general preventative dog control notice regime in Scotland. We recognise that the vast majority of dog owners are responsible animal lovers and will want to keep their exhale bully dogs and comply with these safeguards when they are introduced. The importance of responsible dog ownership is hugely important, but sadly there are some cases of irresponsible dog ownership that can understandably lead to operational challenges for the police as well as local authority dog wardens. Issues could arise with dogs being neglected, not exercised and generally just not compatible with the owner's lifestyle leading to behavioural issues. While the focus today is on exhale bully dogs, any dog has a propensity to become out of control or even dangerous if it's not trained properly, socialised properly and not kept under proper control at all times in all places. I was struck by the courage of someone who had lived experience of having been attacked by a dog when I met with them last month. The individual spoke bravely when telling their story of how they suffered a bite dog attack resulting with physical, emotional and financial consequences and which were severe, caused by the incident. I'm aware that there have been a range of views on the decision made, but I want to place on record my thanks to all those that I've met in recent weeks for their helpful engagement, input, expertise and time. Just as it is in the case in England and Wales, I must stress that these are new safeguards rather than a ban and it's important that people understand the effect of the new safeguards. There are thousands of applications from exhale bully owners in England and Wales, from owners who have sought exemption certificates to enable them to keep their exhale bully dogs. It would therefore be wrong to categorise the safeguards whether in Scotland, England or Wales as a ban. Presiding Officer, I've heard from many concerned voices in recent weeks around the impact of this policy and we will of course continue to engage stakeholders to hear about the practical issues arising and we will carefully consider these for Scotland. From my discussions to date, I'm aware of concerns related to veterinary capacity given the uncertainty around the number of exhale bully dog owners who will require vet assistance. I'm also conscious of the possible impact on animal welfare organisations and wider issues connected to the designation of dogs under the dangerous dogs legislation, both in terms of the impact of some of the safeguards and the wider implications. These issues will continue to require serious consideration and I am happy to discuss those as we implement the safeguards in Scotland. It is important that members, exhale bully dog owners and the general public understand what the new safeguards will mean. Subject to approval by Parliament, the effect of the new Scottish controls will be to mean owners will need to make a decision about whether to keep their dogs. There will be two stages to this new safeguards regime. From a date that we will announce the first stage will mean it will be an offence in Scotland to sell an exhale bully dog, to abandon an exhale bully dog or let it stray, to give away an exhale bully dog, to breed from an exhale bully dog or to have an exhale bully dog in public without a lead or a muzzle. The second stage will be the deadline to apply for your dog to be added to the exemption index. After this date, which again will be announced in the coming period, it will be an offence to own an exhale bully dog unless you either have an exemption certificate or have applied for a certificate. This two-stage approach will give a limited amount of time for exhale bully owners to make an informed decision about what they want to do with their dogs. It is appropriate to give this opportunity, however, once the new regime is in place, the owner will need to decide to keep their dog and so to adhere to the new safeguards or to no longer keep their dog. For those who wish to keep their dog and comply with the new safeguards, a fee will be payable to apply to registered dog on the exemption index, and compensation will be payable for those owners who no longer wish to keep their dogs. The amount of the fee and the compensation payable will be set out in regulations and confirmed in the coming period. Just for reference, the equivalent amounts in England and Wales are £92.40 for the register for the dog to be on the exemption index, and either £100 or £200 for the loss of a dog subject to euthanisation and payment for the process of euthanising your dog depending on whether the service was paid for. In addition to the need for a muzzle and keeping your dog on a lead, the new safeguards operating as part of the exemption include having your dog microchipped and neutered. The specific dates for these stages will be set out in legislation to be laid and agreed by Parliament, but we are working at pace to urgently develop necessary regulations. Dog owners in Scotland should therefore start to consider what they may wish to do with their Excel bully dogs. Given what the Scottish Government has announced, I suggest that it would be sensible for any prospective owners of Excel bully dogs to seriously bear in mind the need to adhere to the new safeguards if they are minded to acquire an Excel bully dog where they currently do not own one. We will develop guidance and practical support to allow owners to understand the legislation of what is required, and this will include details on how to identify an Excel bully dog using the standard developed by the UK Government. Presiding Officer, for Scotland we must recognise the consequences of the UK Government's policy on Excel bully dogs. Effectively, if we see owners in England and Wales able to rid of their Excel bully dogs here in Scotland, we therefore have to act and enhance safeguards that will help to keep the public safe. It is therefore right to replicate the regime in England and Wales so that we remove the ability of English and Welsh dog owners to use Scotland to get rid of their dogs. Moving forward, we will be considering issues that has arisen as a consequence of the UK Government's policy. We will also continue to work closely with stakeholders to look at mitigating where appropriate the impact of any unintended consequences of these controls. Finally, despite the need to introduce these new safeguards, we remain committed to the fundamental principles of the Scottish approach. The situation with Excel bully dogs is unique, but we remain inacquyrwydigly, committed to deed and not breed. The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which time we will move on to the next item of business. Those members who would wish to ask a question, please press your request to speak buttons and I call Russell Finlay. I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement for fans of SNP grievance output—this really is a belter. Adults and children across the UK have been maimed and killed by Excel bullies in response and, quite rightly, UK ministers moved quickly to protect the public. They banned the breeding, sale, exchange or gifting of these dangerous and powerful animals, but the SNP decided to reject the same measures. We know that seeking divergence from the UK is what gets these people out of bed in the morning, but putting petty nationalist point-scoring above public safety surely marks a new low. I note that 11 SNP MSPs have already stated their opposition to this ban, but will they now show some teeth or will they retreat with their tails between their legs? My colleague Jamie Greene and others have warned that the SNP's stupidity would result in an influx of Excel bullies into Scotland. That is exactly what is happening. For the minister to stand here today and try to blame others is pathetic. What an absolute brass neck the people of Scotland are not daft, so can she tell them, while she and Humza Yousaf dithered, how many Excel bullies have been brought into Scotland and will she now take some responsibility for her in action and apologise to anyone who suffers harm as a result? Just for clarity, Mr Finlay says that we dithered and delayed and refused to follow the ban down south in England and Wales, and that is inaccurate. I wrote to the UK Government after I had my first letter in mid-November saying that we would not be following the same timescale. We have in place dog control notices that allow dangerous dogs to be on lead and muzzles, which will be implemented in England and Wales on 31 December. We had that in place. I then engaged with stakeholders over the past few weeks, and when I wrote to the minister, I asked about the legalities of dog owners. Minister, I am not having all the sedentary chuntring here. If it was Mr Finlay, one of the two of you, anyway gentlemen, you are both looking equally, she said, if I may say so. Minister, please resume. It is just important to reiterate and to understand the reason why the Scottish Government has been left with little choice in making this decision. The Scottish Government was engaging with dog control key interests in Scotland to help to assess the principle of introducing the new safeguards to Excel bully dogs. However, there was a base on the position in Scotland unaffected by the introduction of the new safeguards in England and Wales on Excel bully dogs. Now that the UK Government has been unable to provide a definite statement on whether the new controls on selling Excel bully dogs applied to dogs' owners living in England and Wales, who seek to sell their dogs outside England and Wales, has changed our consideration. I thank the minister for the advance sight of our statement. This has been another example of the inability of our two Governments to work together. We have seen the consequence of that lack of alignment and confusion in recent weeks, but now the Government has proposed a ban in Scotland. The whole Minister will work with the SSPC and others to ensure that it is workable, given the police, the vets, the local authorities and the resources that they need to enforce it and support owners on low incomes with the cost of exemptions at a time of a cost-aliving crisis. Will the minister recognise that appalling dog attacks occur when irresponsible owners fail to keep their dogs of many breeds under control, yet those owners often escape with nothing more than a rap on the knuckles from the court? It is five years since the Government promised to take action against irresponsible owners and breeders, so it is simply not good enough for the minister to say that she will work in the medium term to look at potential improvements to the utterly inadequate control of dogs act. Does she not accept that we need action now from the Government with stronger powers for councils and the police and the courts that make clear responsibility, ultimate lies, with irresponsible owners and irresponsible breeders? Firstly, I will most definitely, as I have in the past several weeks, be working with all stakeholders moving forward as we create this legislation to replicate the England and Wales moving forward, just to go back to the report back from 2019 for Scottish Government to take action. There has been action since that report in 2019. The Scottish Government did deliver a digital social media campaign in 2021 to promote the importance of responsible dog ownership, and has since rerun the elements of the campaign on several occasions. We have also put in place in 2022 the dog control notices scheme throughout all local authorities, and there are currently over 1,200 dogs on the database, and the figures for that are released on a weekly basis. As I said in my opening speech, we are committed to reviewing the dog control legislation of 2010. If we look at the dangerous dog acts from 1991, the Scottish Government led a working group made up of stakeholders, including Police Scotland, the Crown Office, the Procurator Fiscal Service, Royal Mail, the Communications Working Union, Scottish Community Safety Network and the Scottish SPCA back in 2022, to assist taking forward the Scottish Government's commitment to review the 1991 act. The working group has undertaken the review, and we are now considering the wide range of views offered to determine what might be appropriate as the next steps. I would advise the chamber that, obviously, we have a number of members who are seeking to ask a question of the minister, so I would appreciate succinct questions and answers to much. I have been contacted by constituents who are responsible owners of well-trained, well-looked-after American XL bullies to her beloved family pets. They rightly point out that bullies are a breed of dog, not a type of dog. Through the decades, various different dog breeds have been deemed dangerous when the problem was at the other end of the lead. Indeed, snot breeds is a sensible approach. Can the minister outline whether the Scottish Government intends to keep the regulations under review and issue a position to give an outline of the review process? The member raises an important question. I want to be clear that, as the First Minister was earlier at FMQs, the safeguards being introduced does not mean that the Scottish Government is moving away from the deed-not-breed approach, which is recognised by dog control experts as being the most effective way of keeping communities safe. The dog control approach in Scotland as set out in the control of dogs Scotland Act 2010 has been and remains focused on the actions of owners of dogs to maximise responsible dog ownership. I agree with you that it is the owners who hold the key to keeping communities safe from out-of-control and dangerous dogs. However, given the specific situation arising here from the actions of the UK Government, the Scottish Government has been left with little choice in making this decision. What we are committed to is, over the medium term, a further assessment on how the local authority enforcement powers in the 2010 act can be improved so that communities can better be protected from out-of-control dogs. I will engage with all those who have an interest, including the member. Sadly, lives and limbs have been lost as a result of the most horrendous of attacks. Data that I uncovered shows that there have been 9,500 hospital admissions in Scotland since the flagship 2010 act was enabled. Taking action in Scotland should have been a proactive one, not a reluctant one, as the case may currently be. Nonetheless, let me ask the minister, given that five specific dog breeds account for over half of the current dog control notices, how confident is she that the Government's deed-not-breed approach is leading to improved public safety, because statistics seem to suggest otherwise? On the dog control notices that I get from local authorities on a weekly basis, where we have over 1,200 dogs, there is not one distinct breed. There are cross breeds, but I know that the Excel bully does not come in the top 10 of those. I do not agree with Jeremy Green regarding the data. I just want to reiterate that, since this announcement, I have been engaging extensively with stakeholders. It is important for the member to understand the reason why the Scottish Government has been left with little choice in this decision. As a member will be aware, the UK Government has been unable to provide a definite statement on whether the new controls on selling or giving Excel bullies apply to those seeking to give them away in Scotland, and that has significantly changed our consideration in recent weeks. Since the announcement of the changes to legislation related to Excel bulldogs in England, we have seen reports of people bringing their Excel bulldogs to Scotland, including examples of Excel bulldog puppies being abandoned on the Scottish side of the border. Can the minister give assurances that any legislation in Scotland will have principles of animal welfare as part of the legislation and that the Government is working with animal welfare organisations to ensure that any dogs that have been brought to Scotland are properly looked after and dealt with? As my statement may clear, this is not a decision taken lightly, but the Scottish Government has been left with little choice and will be aware that there is a range of views of the new safeguards. We are mindful of the possible impact on animal welfare organisations of this law change, and we will continue to engage with animal welfare organisations and other key stakeholders to help us to understand the impact of the regulations that will be introduced to the safeguards of Excel bulldogs. The Scottish Government has stated on many occasions that animal welfare is a matter that we take very seriously, and I am happy to assure the member that we will continue to work closely with local authorities and animal welfare stakeholders as that has progressed. I can confirm that I am urgently planning to discuss the issues that are raised by stakeholders in my recent discussions with Gillian Martin, Minister for Energy and Environment, who has animal welfare under her remit. Dog attacks are a serious issue. I have a constituent Evelyn Baginski who petitioned this Parliament demanding action on dog-on-dog attacks. I have an old friend Dave Sneller, who I had to drive to Crosshouse hospital when part of his finger was bitten off as we delivered election leaflets. Far from being an excuse for postponement, the lockdown meant a huge increase in dog ownership, and so is the occasion for change. So when will the Scottish Government stop being piecemeal, stop dragging its feet, turbocharge its working group, review the 2010 act, undertake an urgent review and come back to this Parliament with clear and comprehensive reforms instead of being reactive, haphazard and sluggish? Minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think your assumptions that we are reactive, I have to be honest, we have to be reactive in this particular situation because we only found about, I was announced on the 31st of October, that the first stage was going to be implemented in England and Wales. So this is why we didn't follow the eight-week timescale that England and Wales did, and we've taken our time to speak to stakeholders. We're not dragging our heels, as I've already said. We have reviewed the Dangerous Dog Act 1991 and we will be determining what may be the next appropriate steps. As I said in my speech, we will be looking at potential improvements to the dog control 2010 act that could enhance and strengthen the general preventative dog control notices in Scotland. Minister, the UK Government by not consulting the Scottish Government and making a knee-jerk election year desperate promise, they have demonised the very good responsible owners by playing constitutional politics. The DCN notice system is working well for all breeds in Perthshire, so can the minister say how many DCNs have been imposed in Perth? Also, if the UK Government legislation states that a bully dog cannot be given away, how can they claim or did they claim that giving a dog to a Scottish rescue centre or a new home in Scotland was not an offence but doing the same in England and Wales was an offence? Minister. Member raises a very important point. It is a lack of certainty from the UK Government as to the effect of their own legislation that has led to this decision. The UK Government are not certain English and Welsh dog owners could, would be committing an offence in selling their XL bully dogs outside England and Wales. I think the definition in the letter was unlikely, which was left the Scottish Government with little choice to act to ensure no undue risk to public safety in Scotland. Just in relation to dog control notices, I recently met Perth and Kinross council dog wardens team, and I agree that they are doing a great job there using their powers. I think that they have currently got 65 live dog control notices in place. We know that not all local authorities make such good use, and I would encourage all local authorities to seek to use their preventative powers in helping to keep their communities safe whenever the breed of dog. We will give more consideration to what we can do alongside local authorities to encourage more consistent deployment of the powers that they have got to help with dangerous dog. For clarity, the Scottish Government is saying that they refuse to ban XL bully dogs in Scotland, which was in the press, was inaccurate. I wrote to the UK Government in November, saying that we would not be following the same timescale as England and Wales. Given the loss of life and serious injury that is involved in other parts of the UK, pertaining to this dog breed, it is right that we bring forward measures to address the issue, such as the safeguards that are announced by the minister today. However, this case has underscored a pressing need to review our legislation covering dangerous dogs in its entirety and how dog control regimes interact across our four nations. While those provisions may provide necessary safeguards for dogs that are home in domestic settings, I want to interrogate in part the exchange that the minister had with Emma Harper as I seek some clarity from the minister around those XL bullies that are currently being looked after by organisations such as Dogs Trust and RSPCA. If the exemption certificate could extend to those dogs that are currently kenneled with animal welfare charities whose organisational values prohibit them from destroying a healthy animal, will the law require those dogs to be euthanised as they are in England? Minister. Thank you. Just regarding legislation, as I already have mentioned in my speech, the Scottish Government will be looking to work with key stakeholders and interested parties to look at potential improvements to the Dog Control 2010 Act that could enhance some strengths and the general preventative dog control notices in Scotland on the point of the puppies being taken in at the borders into rehoming. We will be looking at the legislation moving forward, but at this time we are looking to replicate what England and Wales are doing. It is my understanding that if anybody does have an XL bully dog in Scotland at this present time, they will have to follow the safeguarding procedures that we will legislate for. I have, I would advise the chamber, four more members seeking to ask a question. I would hope to take all four, but I will need to sink questions and answers. Fulton MacGregor to be followed by Liam Kerr. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am disappointed that we are having to replicate the UK Government legislation here. Legislation that has been widely criticised by animal welfare organisations and experts such as the SSPCA and Blue Cross has been rushed through and with potential to make the situation more dangerous, not safer. That said, this is not a criticism for the Scottish Government or indeed the minister who I know has worked her socks off to find solutions. We have been effectively backed into a corner here with the unfortunate influx of XL bullies from England as a result of this poorly drafted UK legislation. Therefore, my question to the minister is this, what discussions and considerations were given to try to find solutions legislative or otherwise to the issue of bullies being brought to Scotland before the decision was made to replicate the UK legislation? As I said in my statement, the Scottish Government decision is not one decision that we have taken lightly here and it reflects the specific circumstances that have arisen in order to reduce the undue impact on Scotland, and the new safeguards that have been operating in England and Wales, we will need to replicate them. The control of Dogs Scotland Act 2010 is of course not focused on any one breed. It is a deed not a breed approach, so any specific measures targeting XL bully dogs take a different approach, which would of course run contrary to the overall principles of the 2010 Act. We need to acknowledge that other situations might arise like this in the future and we will want to ensure that we have legislation here in Scotland that enables us to keep people safe and enables the effective control of dogs in certain circumstances. After months of Scottish Conservative pressure, the SNP has decided to ban XL bully dogs in Scotland, despite the First Minister earlier this month saying that there was no need to position which, rather contrasts with the confused attempts to suggest is a timescale issue. However, how much taxpayer money has had to be spent and will be spent going forward on things like developing bespoke legislation, consulting with stakeholders, none of which would have been needed if the UK legislation had been adopted in the first place? It is very important that we engage with Scottish stakeholders, just don't override and put legislation through that comes up from down south and that's what I have been doing in recent weeks. As a member is aware that the UK Government has been unable throughout, and let's not make it months and months, this has been a very short process to give a definite statement on whether the new controls of selling or giving away XL bullies applies in Scotland, and that is why it has changed our consideration. The Scottish Greens do not believe that banning ill-defined dog breeds is the best way to ensure either community safety or high animal welfare standards, so I welcome the Minister's assurance that those measures are not a ban. Will she say how the approach in Scotland will allow us to tackle the problems with rogue breeders and irresponsible owners, and will she agree to a summit with animal welfare organisations, vets and others to develop a coherent strategic approach on this issue? Animal welfare is not only an important issue but an emotive one. The Scottish Government takes animal welfare very seriously and is committed to the highest possible welfare standards, and we need to emphasise to people that they must be responsible owners and act responsibly when deciding to buy a dog or take one into their lives. I've already met with a number of animal welfare organisations as well as representatives from the British Veterinary Association to discuss the issue of XL bully dogs, and I'm happy to assure the member that this engagement and that of other relevant members will continue. The Scottish Government has already been engaging the key animal welfare stakeholders, including the veterinary profession, on the issue of low welfare dog breeding for some considerable time, and we will continue to work with stakeholders to address the issues through the Pet Trade Task Force, led by the Scottish SPCA. On the issue of a summit, I am happy to speak to my colleague Minister Gillian Martin on that subject. I remain convinced, as I have from the start, that the proposed regulations are ill-considered and unjust to decent owners and demonising a breed is not the answer. As the author of the control of dogs Scotland Act 2010, a member's bill, it introduced the concept of deed not breed. I say to Russell Finlay if he could just switch off the sensationalism for a moment. Only 2 per cent of issue dog control notices apply to XL bully-type breeds. I'm pleased to hear voices around the chamber looking for a review and amendments to the control of dogs Scotland Act. I hope that it's done urgently. I hope that the act is given the publicity that it deserves. The public are not aware of it, some professionals are not aware of it, and my final request is that we have a national dog microchipping database, because they are all in different databases at the moment, so we can track the dogs and irresponsible owners. I would like to thank the member for the question, but I also thank Christine Graham for her member's bill, which bought in the Dogs Control at Scotland Act 2010. I have met the member in recent days, and I am more than happy to consider any suggestions of strengthening legislation in the future with the member. That concludes the statement. There will be very short pause before we move on to the next item of business.