 Ie хочу hwnna Keep good morning and welcome to the 8th meeting of the criminal justice committee in 2024. We've got no apologies this morning, and we joined this morning by Christine Gray on MSP and Bob Dorris on MSP, so welcome both to the meeting. Our first item of business is to consider whether to take item 5 in private. This is to consider our approach to stage 1 scrutiny of the Police, Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny Scotland Bill wasYe of doing this. Mae'r next item of business is consideration of the following negative instrument, i.e. the dangerous dogs designated types Scotland order of 2024. I refer members to paper 1. I welcome to the meeting this morning, Siobhan Brown, Minister for Victims and Community Safety, and Mr Jim Wilson, licensing team leader at the criminal justice division of the Scottish Government. I welcome to you more. I invite the minister to speak to the SSI. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the committee with information on the safeguards that the Scottish Government is putting in place in relation to the XL bully dogs. The vast majority of dog owners are responsible animal lovers and know that owning a dog brings with important responsibilities. Whilst a dog attack remains a rare occurrence, where they do occur, they can have devastating consequences. Such incidents illustrate the importance of responsible dog ownership and effective enforcement by Police Scotland and local authorities of relevant dog control laws, and we have public safety always in mind. As I made clear in my statement to Parliament last month, the decision to introduce the initial new safeguards on XL bully dogs was not one that we made lightly. We wanted to ensure that we took an evidence-based approach after engagement with relevant stakeholders, which I carried out following the UK Government's announcement of their legislation. What became clear after the legislation came into force was that the UK Government could not confirm that an owner of an XL bully dog who lived in England and Wales and who wasn't able to sell or rehome a dog in England could not do so in Scotland. So, while to do so would be breaching English and Welsh law, it did create a loophole that led to some owners bringing dogs to Scotland. Therefore, we moved to take action immediately to introducing this new legislation. I am determined that we promote and support responsible ownership, animal welfare and public safety as effectively as possible. Our approach is in two parts with the first legislation that you have before you today, and the effect of this legislation is that from 23 February, being this Friday, selling, gifting and exchanging an XL bully dog will be prohibited and that loophole will be removed. Owners of XL bully dogs remain legal to own an XL bully dog with owners having to ensure that their dog is muzzled and on a lead when in a public place. Our second phase will be to make it an offence to own an XL bully dog without an exemption from 1 August. Further secondary legislation will shortly be laid that will provide for the detail of the system of owners applying and paying for an exemption by 31 July. This will allow owners to make plans and prepare for the new safeguards. We will continue to engage with a wide range of stakeholders as we prepare for the implementation of the new safeguards. A new stakeholder forum has therefore been established, which we will meet regularly over the next few months. I am happy to take any questions that the committee may have. Okay, thank you very much indeed minister. We will now move to questions. Can I bring in any member who would like to ask a question? Okay, I will bring in Fulton MacGregor and then Sharon Downey. Thank you convener. It is not so much a question but more of a wee statement. I want to first thank the minister for her engagement with me on this issue and indeed those in my constituency. I want to thank Kelsey Kearney and her family, indeed the whole team, Bedley Garden's dog care and Christon in my constituency, including the many experts that they have on site and those such as a Blue Cross who provided us briefings on this. I will be honest with you, prior to this issue, I did not have a great knowledge of the exiled belly situation but I feel that I do now because of the information that has been provided by constituents and experts. I have to say that I do think that the minister knows that this is a very bad legislation from the UK Government. Why I say that is that I know that perhaps my Tory colleagues here will say, it is an attempt to make society safer. On committees in this Parliament, I think that we have always prided ourselves on listening to experts and listening to those who actually know the situation. The experts in this field are clearly inconsistently telling us that this is a bad legislation and that it has a high risk of not working, it is knee-jerk and it is ill-thought-out. Therefore, I think that the UK Government really had a duty to listen to those experts. To me, I might be wrong, I might stand corrected here, but to me it feels that the legislation has been pulled through by UK Government ministers and officials and not experts. All that said, I started off by thanking the minister and I know exactly where the path that she has had to take on the legislation. At the end of the day, the UK Government has not accounted or legislated for the dogs that have been brought to Scotland and we have seen that happen. I was aware of press articles and I have seen large numbers of exil billies being brought into Scotland. Therefore, I think that we have been ultimately pushed into a corner where I feel today that I will support this legislation, but I wanted to make it very clear and put on the record that I think that we have been pushed into this position. I know that the minister was not quite saying that, but I feel that I want to say it. I feel that we have been pushed into this position because the loopholes were not closed. I do not think that what I have heard from the animal welfare organisations who have been in touch, including those in my constituency, will make the situation safer and, in fact, will create a whole host of other issues up and down the UK, including animal welfare concerns when people decide not to get the licence and other issues that I know other members might come to speak about. I do not have a particular question, as I said. I thank the minister again. I know that my constituents really feel listened to by the meeting that we had. I have had feedback from them. I feel that they really feel that you get the concerns and that you are listening to them and will find a way throughout us. However, I am in the position now where I realise and accept that we have got no choice but to bring in this legislation. This was never a constitutional issue. It was about good legislation. As you know, the legislation was announced with no consultation with the Scottish Government and no background moving forward with it. It has been accelerated to where we are today, but one thing that I would like to say to Mr McGregor is that initially the UK Government did estimate that there would be 10,000 dogs on the list. At present, it is nearly 61,000. Out of those 61,000, there are only 200 that have chosen not to keep their dogs. The majority of dog owners are responsible dog owners, and I am confident and hopeful that that will happen in Scotland as well. The UK Government announced the ban in September and it came into force in December 2023. Why has it taken the Scottish Government so long to implement what effectively seems to be the same ban? If I may, can I just go through the timescale here? I think that it is really important that we are very clear on how all this happened. On 15 September, the UK Government did publicly announce that they were going to bring in an Excel bully ban in England and Wales. There was no consultation with the Scottish Government. On 15 September, the Prime Minister announced he had ordered a DEFRA to undertake the work to define and ban Excel bully dogs in England and Wales because the Excel bully dog was not a breed that was recognised by the main British dog associations or the Kennel club. DEFRA convened an expert group to specify a legal definition of the Excel bully for the purpose of the ban in England and Wales, and that met for the first time on 21 September 2023. The regulations and legislation for the ban in the detail were not available in early September because the detail was just being planned as of 21 September. On 29 September, I received a letter from the UK Government advising that they would be putting in a ban in England and Wales but giving no timescale or any detail. On 2 October, the dog control coalition organisations that were set up in the DEFRA group, the RSPCA, the Scottish SPCA, the British Veterinary Association, Kennel Club, Blue Cross, Dogs Trust and Battle Sea, all withdrew from the Prime Minister's DEFRA group due to concerns on the rushed legislation. On 31 October, the UK Government publicly announced the timescale, being eight weeks before they implemented not being able to give away Excel bully dogs and having to be muzzled and on a lead by 31 December, which would be an eight-week period. On 9 November, I sent a letter to the UK Government saying that we would not be following the same legislation and timescale. At that stage, we had six weeks to get things in place by 31 December. On 14 December, I also had a letter to my original query because I was asking the UK Government about the potential loopholes with its legislation and the consequences in Scotland. On 14 December, I finally received a response from the UK Government with a very vague answer. At that stage is when we decided, after Christmas, to bring in the legislation at pace. You mentioned that you had received a letter. On a letter from Michael Gove MP, he warned that Scotland could become a dumping ground for the Excel bullies and raised concerns that it had not yet been possible to secure equivalent protections in Scotland. My question was, what engagement did you have then with the UK Government on how many meetings phone calls? Just to go back on a couple of things that he just mentioned, he said about the announcement on 15 September and that there had been no communication with the Scottish Government. I am under the impression that, on 15 September, when he made the announcement that UK officials on that day were in contact with Scottish Government officials as well. You had also mentioned that, on 21 September, there was the first meeting of the working group. Again, I am under the impression that Scottish Government officials were part of that working group. They came up and helped with the definition of the confirmation of the dog. You are saying that you had no communication, but I am under the impression that Scottish Government officials were involved from the day of the announcement. On the letters that you have received, every letter asked for meetings with the Scottish Government and for you to be involved, because they actually wanted it to be a joint approach so that there was not any of those loopholes that you are talking about. I am also under the impression that the loopholes created because there has been no engagement from the Scottish Government with the UK Government on it, so because there is no legislation in Scotland, that is what has created the loopholes. It is because we have not put the legislation in at the same time. The letter from Michael Gove was addressed at the DfM. I was cc'd into that one and that was sent on 13 November. The timescale from September to 31 December is a very short period of time to get legislation in place. I do know and I will bring in Jim here because he has been involved in the discussions with the UK Government from the beginning, because the devolved administrations have been having discussions with them. I appreciate the question from the member. Just to stress that, at the first time that we were made aware of the UK Government's decision to bring in these new controls on Exxail Bully Dogs, it was actually on the BBC news website, so there was no prior knowledge or heads up that this was coming down the track. I must stress that we regularly engage with deaf officials on a range of dog control policy issues. We did, as you are quite rightly pointed out, have a presence on the UK Government-led expert group that was designed to try and develop at rapid pace the confirmation standard. Myself and Andrew Vost from the Scottish Government Animal Welfare were observers on that group. That was obviously with a view to trying to provide support to the UK Government with the confirmation standard. Just to stress that we have and continue to have weekly engagement at official level with deaf officials, and that was to work through the mechanics of how they were actually planning to develop the policy in relation to Exxail Bully safeguards. The concerns that were raised at official level around the territorial extent of the provisions that were being brought through statutory instruments, that is why the minister had written to at the time Lord Benion today's concerns that we felt there was an issue in terms of owners that could evade the law by simply transporting dogs to Scotland with no consequence. Just to stress that there has been regular engagement with deaf officials, that still continues. We meet every Friday to discuss a range of issues, not just in relation to Exxail Bully dogs, but in terms of potential wider reforms around dog control more generally. There have been regular weekly meetings between the Scottish Government officials. How many meetings has the minister had with the UK Government? I haven't had any meetings with the UK Government, but I've had many meetings since November with stakeholders and with Jim on a weekly basis who's kept me updated on all progress. Can I ask why you've not had any UK Government meetings? I just haven't. There hasn't been on the agenda. I've been meeting with stakeholders, but it's a really important subject for a lot of people, especially people that own Exxail Bully. Did you not think that it would be quite good to have a meeting with the ministers to ask? I feel confident to be honest. On the 14th of November, after the announcement on the letter that I received on the 9th, I didn't think that we would be able to get the legislation in place. I didn't feel comfortable, to be honest, getting the legislation at speed in place for the 31st of December. We also have in Scotland, which is unique to England and Wales dog control notices through local authorities that have the powers to muzzle and to insist that dangerous dogs are on a lead. On a weekly basis, Jim does update me on those figures and there's currently 1,200 dogs on that. On the mid-November, I felt confident in engaging with the stakeholders that we had these safety guards already in place in Scotland come the 31st of December that weren't in place in England or Wales and that we were protected for community safety from dangerous dogs. Just in six weeks is a tight time scale, but we're asked to be putting this in in less than four weeks. If we've got time, there's quite a lot of interest, so I welcome back to you, Sharon. If I can bring in Russell Finlay and then Colin McNeill. Thanks, convener. The reason, of course, for these controls being brought into place is public safety after a spate of horrific attacks, some of which were fatal, some of which involved children. Our thoughts are with all of those who've been harmed in these attacks and lost their lives. We welcome wholeheartedly the Scottish Government finally coming to the right decision. I'd like to know what was this a case of spectacular poor judgement, dithering or simply an opportunity to seek divergence with the rest of the UK? I would say neither of those suggestions. As I've already said earlier, this has been on-going for several months now. I have been engaging significantly with all stakeholders regarding this. It did come into place, I think, over the Christmas period, where we did see pretty much on social media incidents of exiled bully dogs being bought up to Scotland and also after the UK Government could not confirm whether or not that would be illegal. Weeks, if not months, the Scottish Government was warned by the UK Government, by politicians in the Scottish Parliament, by the media, by experts that this was an inevitable consequence of the rest of the UK legislation. You said in your opening statement that dog attacks are rare, but there have been two exiled bully attacks in Scotland within the past month, one of which was just three days ago. In both those attacks, people were harmed. In both those attacks, there were so serious police Scotland had to use firearms to kill the animals, and reportedly, both of those dogs came from elsewhere in the UK. Do you not therefore regret acting quicker? I think that if I could just say firstly regarding the incident in East Kilbride on Sunday, this is a very distressing incident, and my thoughts are for the victims of the dog attack. I'd like to thank Police Scotland, who attended this incident and swiftly ensured that the incident was brought under control. This is a live case, and members will appreciate that I cannot discuss any details of the specific incident. In line with standard operating practice, the use of a firearm by an officer will be assessed by the police investigation and the review commissioner. I understand that the breed of a dog is still yet to be confirmed and that the incident that you are referring to in Hamilton could not determine the breed as well. This is one of the issues with the stakeholders, with the Defford Club, is identifying the breed. It was one of the challenges. You and your officials have also talked about the system in Scotland of dog wardens, which are controlled by local authorities. In your answer, a moment ago to Macaulay Shandow, you mentioned that there have been 1,200 dogs subject to dog control notices. Do you happen to know how many dog wardens are armed in Scotland? Every local authority should have a dog warden. That is the problem. It is up to local authorities, because every local authority has the obligation to have a dog warden. I know that some local authorities, such as Perth, Dyngan, Ross, have... They are an exception. We did our own research. We asked all 32 councils, and we have received answers from around half of them. We have taken Aberdeenshire, West Dunbartonshire, East Ayrshire, Scottish Borders and Inverclyde. They all just have one each. Maninshire Council has 0.2 dog wardens, which I am assuming is one dog warden working one day per week. Glasgow, despite its size and population, has one dog warden realistically. There is no way on earth, especially in the face of Scottish Government cuts to local authorities, that they are going to increase these numbers anytime soon, and they are not well placed to deal with the dogs that are under control of the 1,200 dogs. If I could just say, I do have the stats of our dog control notices just for a little bit of context there as well. Five councils, for example, have 188 on the dog control notices. You have Aberdeen, that have got 56. The local authorities are using the dog control notices. I understand your point about local authorities, but we have set up an implementation forum, and we will be discussing that with local authorities and also COSLA and Police Scotland to consider any enforcement and operational issues that arise from this legislation, and it will help to inform consideration of any request for additional funding. The dog wardens that exist are already insufficient. Do you not agree? No, I do not agree. One for the whole of Glasgow is all that is needed. It would be up to each local authority to determine how many dog wardens they need. I am sure that local authorities might politically prioritise to have more dog wardens, but it is up to each local authority. Pauline McNeill, and then Katie Clark. The SSIs that we are considering this morning, is their purpose purely to close the loophole, or I was listening to what Jim Wilson was saying, trying to understand. There was discussion already with the UK Government about exiled bullies policy, and that is what those deffer talks were about. I was just trying to establish exactly why you have brought the regulations now, is it just because you were having those discussions, now that they see the loophole, so you want to close the loophole? Would that be right? Yes, yes. We wanted to bring the legislation in at pace due to exiled bullies being brought up from England and Wales. The working group that Jim Wilson was talking about was around the policy of how to tackle exiled bully dogs. Is that right? I understood that. No, no. It was just to separate those things out. The engagement with officials at DEFL in the main was to look at the new controls that would be considered and introduced in England and Wales. Ultimately, we were able to feed on our perspective and views on that. However, there have been separate Scottish Government-led working groups that have been established to look at opportunities for reform. That includes looking at improvements to enhance and strengthen the control of dogs legislation. There have been engagements to look at the 1991 legislation, the Dangerous Dogs Act. That was a separate Scottish Government-led group. It is not just at ministerial level, but the engagement that we have had with our angel stakeholders has been significant. The DEFRA expert group was feeding in to what you already knew was the plan of the English legislation on exiled bully dogs. The expert working group was designed and led by DEFRA, and it was only in place for a very, very short space of time, a few weeks. That was with the primary focus to develop a confirmation standard. The more routine engagements on a weekly basis were to have some policy conversations around the actual new safeguards that were being considered and developed. Of exiled bully dogs. Then Scotland did his own work, as well as separate from that. There are completely separate strands in terms of the engagement that we are having with Scottish stakeholders around policy, not just in relation to exiled bullies. So you knew that England was planning to ban exiled bully dogs from that expert working group? Well, that expert working group had been convened after the Prime Minister had made the announcement. After? Right, okay. Yeah, didn't have any advance notification that this was actually coming down the track. I'm just trying to, so in my own mind, I just want to understand the timetable. Okay. So Minister, you confirmed that the purpose of these regulations is to close the loophole? That's the real purpose? Initially, yes. So this is the first one. There will be the second SSI that will be soon. Yeah, I wanted to ask you about that, yeah, okay. Are you concerned about the definition of an exiled bully dog? Because you've said that they can't confirm the two incidents that we know about, whether it is the breed or not. Also, under the regulations, who would decide, who makes the decision finally as to what is an exiled bully dog breed? That has been one of the concerns that's been raised with me from all stakeholders, because I think the definition that was determined by DEFRA is the male has to be 20 inches and the female has to be 19 inches. So you could have an exiled bully, for example, that 16 inches or 17 inches, that would not have to wear a muzzle and a lead. So this has caused quite a lot of confusion down south when they implemented this, and the UK Government said, if you've got any doubts, just register. I think what we've found as well over the correspondence that I've received, and I know that Jim's received, is there is confusion out there in the general public, and one of the things that we are keen is to learn lessons on how we can do it better than it has been raised. So we've got to the 31st of July that we'll be putting support and help on the Scottish Government website to help people to determine whether or not they've got an exiled bully. I don't know if you want to bring anything more. I just add to the minister's comments that I would agree that the confirmation standard has triggered quite a lot of concern. I'm receiving many letters from concerned owners that might be unsure as to whether they have an exiled bully-type dog or not. Ultimately, the confirmation standard will be on owners when they're going through that exemption process. The exemption process will be laid out in a second Scottish statutory instrument that will explain how owners engage with the exemption process, what they need to do, when they need to do it. However, that is a move away from normal policy, so if we park exiled bullies for just a second, if you, let's just say, had a pit bull type that's been seized by the police, the owner is then arrested potentially under offences committed under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. If the dog in question doesn't present a risk to public safety, it would still be possible on the direction of the court to consider for the owner to then consider going for an exemption, and there could be an assessment that would be conducted by an expert to determine whether the actual dog in question is actually a prohibited type of dog. However, similar to what the UK Government has done through DEFRA, it's an owner-led process for this exemption period that ultimately we have to have, and details will be in the regulations, but we will have to obviously have a Scottish exemption scheme, which obviously the statutory instrument paves the way for that, but we need to be mindful that we're doing as much as we can to try and mitigate any issues and ensure that owners, when they are writing to the Government or pointing towards information that will be on the Scottish Government website that's to support owners through the process. The purpose of the SSI is to set out the conditions of keeping an exiled bully dog, but as you mentioned the exemptions, we won't see that order until much later in the year, and I was a wee bit concerned about that with the separation of the SSI considered today, but we can't see what the exemptions are, so maybe we could explain that. Just to stress that the regulations that have been developed, not just for the statutory instrument that has been considered today, but for the second statutory instrument, that is well under way. My team has worked at a rapid pace to develop the draft regulations. Ministers have to consider the draft regulations before they are ultimately laid in Parliament, but just to give a sense of timings, we are aware of the need to act quickly around the exemption process, because if we rewind from the designated date when this full regime will kick into play, which is 1 August, the exemption process will close on 31 July, but we're trying to create a bigger window for owners to have the time to consider what they want to do, do they want to retain their dog and go through an exemption process. We're also mindful about the significant impact on animal welfare, rehoming centres, with unengagements with many, many stakeholders, including Edinburgh cat dog home, who are being quite rightly stressed that there is clearly an increase in demand on services, but we are looking at a provision in the regulations that give rehoming centres the opportunity to seek exemption for dogs that were in their care. Obviously, the timings of the statutory instrument, all I can say is that it is coming down the track quickly. I understand my concern. What would be the basis of the exemptions? I don't think that you can separate out the SSI today and the exemptions. What's included in the exemptions then? There are other conditions that are built in the exemption process. There must be a requirement for third-party liability insurance, for example. That is a condition. There will be the requirement and you can tie up this particular SSI with the second SSI. A condition is that the dog must be muzzled in a public place, must be in a leader in a public place. There will be a requirement ultimately to ensure that any changes of circumstances are notified to the Scottish Government. We are mindful of one of the unintended consequences. It is an issue that the UK Government and the Scottish Government are looking at, but what happens if you have someone who is the owner of an exorbili dog and they sadly pass away? We need to look at, in very limited circumstances, the opportunity for the dog to be transferred to someone else. The details will be contained within regulations as to how we are going to achieve that policy aim. It is a policy that has been worked up at rapid pace. I will build on from the minister's comments around the need to consider any implementation issues. The implementation group that has been established has represented us from Police Scotland, COSLA, the National Dog Warden Association, the Society of Chief Health Environmental Officers and Scotland to manage dog warden services within local authorities. Those conversations will be scheduled on a fortnightly basis but with the opportunity to consider any emerging issues on an urgent basis. Minister, you have written to Councillor Chalmers from COSLA to seek a discussion or to open up the chances of a conversation to consider any impact on local authorities, not just Police Scotland, because we recognise that local authorities could be dealt with increasing levels of calls coming in if a member of the public suspects that there might be an exorbili that they have seen in public. It is not on the muzzle, it is not on a lead, so where are they going to turn to? Are they going to phone the Police or are they going to phone local authorities? Just to stress that there is on-going engagement with a range of key stakeholders around those issues. Just as you have answered my question about how you define an exorbili just finally, some organisations have written to the committee with concerns. One of the concerns that concerns me is puppies that have not reached the full growing size of their breed. Will you consider how that will be dealt with? Can I just go back to the comment before I will address that. Just to clarify when the legislation was bought in for the 1st of February in England and Wales, one of the unintended consequences is what Jim has said is about the issue of someone dies, what do you do with it. This is where we are looking at a time scale that is a little bit longer being able to adapt all these unintended consequences into the second SSI, which the UK Government is now adding in hindsight because it was quite rushed through. Just going forward regarding puppies, for example, and we are engaging with stakeholders regarding these issues moving forward for SSIs. Just to add to that if I will be brief, convener. The regular engagements that we have with the dog control coalition, which includes the major animal welfare stakeholders such as Dogstress, SSPCA, RSPCA, Battersea, Blue Cross and others, one of the issues that has been raised with the minister and with me at official level has been the concerns around new terrain requirements because if you have a young dog, it is suggested that it would be not wise to get dogs neutered at a certain age. We are taking into account concerns from animal welfare stakeholders around the neutering process and we think that we have come up with a proportionate response to tackle those concerns that will be set out in the regulations still to come. Minister, you have clearly been watching what has been happening down south and it is clear that there has been a number of problems there. The ban on reforming has had an impact in particular on vets and others at rehoming centres who have been put in a position of being obliged to destroy healthy dogs that come into their care after the rehoming deadline. We are also told that there have been difficulties in establishing muscle training at short notice and the veterinary sector is saying that it lacks sufficient capacity to carry out all the required neutering. Given all the very practical issues that we have already seen in England and Wales and given that you say that you have already had many meetings with stakeholders in Scotland, are you envisaging similar problems in Scotland after the order comes into effect later this week if we vote for it? I have been engaging with stakeholders and I am aware of all those concerns and we have been engaging with stakeholders in Scotland as well. I am envisaging that we will not have the problems that are happening in England and Wales because we are engaging with stakeholders moving forward trying to bring the legislation in, but Jim, I do not know if you want to come in there. That is a really good point because we need to obviously think through the consequences of the policy and what does that really mean for stakeholders, but we have had and continue to have weekly engagements with Dock Control Coalition, which does include British Veterinary Association representation. I think that the key thing for us is that we can cope with what is about to happen. Given that you have had all those meetings, you must—that is a very basic question, is not it? Are you assured that everything is going to be okay in Scotland or do you think that there will be problems? There is a potential for problems. We have to recognise that there is a strain on the system in terms of when people need to undertake certain conditions if they wish to obtain an exemption certificate. Statistically, we have had conversations with DEFRA analysts around—and Minister has already pointed out—a significant number of exemption applications that were submitted. What was interesting in terms of the pressures on capacities across vets and practices across the UK is that I think that the figure was that 62 per cent of exorably dogs had not been neutered, which is quite high. Of course, that does place strain on services when there was a requirement in what was a two-and-a-half-month window for the exemption process for owners in England and Wales. The exemption process in England and Wales opened up mid-November. I cannot remember the exact date. I apologise. It ran through to 31 January. What we are looking to try and do in Scotland is to create a longer timeframe for that exemption process to ease the strain on vets and others. In terms of timetable, just to be clear, the order of its pass would come into effect on 23 February, but it would be an offence from 1 August. Can you clarify that in terms of the timetable of law-abiding citizens being in a position where they would be guilty of an offence? When would that impact? The second one will come in first for 1 August. We will be laying the second SSI very shortly, and that will be giving all the timescale and details. If I could just come back to Ms Clark in one detail that might give you a little bit confidence from the engagement that we have had down south, I said to Mr McGregor that out of the 61,000 that were registered in England and Wales, only 200 decided to not keep their Excel bullies. The majority of Excel bully dog owners are responsible. That is where it is going to give me confidence that there will not be the pressures on the vets as predicted with the high numbers that are being registered. The order that has been put in front of us is very short, astonishingly short. Can we just confirm exactly what is going to be happening later this week? Later this week, the safeguards relating to designated dogs would require to be kept in a muscle and on a lead. Beyond that, is anything happening later this week, or will it be on 1 August? Having an Excel bully in dog in public, you will need to have a lead on a muzzle. Breeding and breeding, you are not allowed to breed, you are not allowed to sell an Excel bully dog, abandon an Excel bully dog or let it stray or give away an Excel bully dog. That is all included in this case. If you were to say, breed or give away, you potentially would be committing a criminal offence. Is that correct? The problem with us, obviously, is the insufficient clarity about what an Excel bully dog is. We are being asked to vote on a very, very short order. Is there any definition within that order? Do you not think that parliamentarians should have some kind of definition before voting? The definition is on the UK Government website, which we are following. So you are mirroring the definition? Yes. If we didn't mirror it, the loophole would be reopened. I apologise, convener, to come in on the point around—I cannot raise the point around penalties. It might be useful to explain that. I think that you have covered it. The other issue is on taxes. Do you think that it is clear, because you are saying that it is the UK Government website, that it is that, but in terms of younger dogs—because there has been an issue around that—can you refer me also to any definitions in relation to that? That has clearly been a very live issue down south. It is a live issue down south, and I think that we need to be mindful that the approach that was adopted and run by the UK Government through DEFRA and a similar approach to the Scottish Government will urge a precautionary approach. The difficulty is that it is very, very difficult to type a dog when it is young, when it is a puppy. We do recognise that. There may not be any papers that suggest that a person actually owns an Excel bully type dog, but the UK Kennel Club does not have that as a recognised. Do you understand the definition that will come into effect later this week? We have to look at a UK website, and that is where we look for that. What is the Scottish Government website? In terms of the guidance regarding young dogs, is there going to be anything in place later this week, or do we have to wait for later for that so that the owners know what to do, so that the citizens know what they are supposed to do? My understanding is that, if you would be looking at the definition on the website as is, the male has to be 20 inches, and the female has to be 19 inches. I would say that a puppy at that stage would not reach that. John Swinney. I want to get confirmation that the first Scottish Government new of a United Kingdom Government proposal for an Excel bully dog ban was via the BBC news website on 15 September. Is that correct? Can I ask the minister if that is the type of notification the Scottish Government would believe is consistent with the inter-governmental frameworks that are supposed to operate between the four Administrations of the United Kingdom? Yes, I do not believe that the Scottish Government finding out by BBC news is the right way for the UK Government to be treating devolved nations in decisions such as this. Does that highlight a fundamental lack of respect for the role of the Scottish Government and the legislative responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament? Yes, in a way. I do not know if it is totally intentional or it was just disregarded to tell the Scottish Government but it would have been ideal if there was communication prior to the announcement. I find it very strange that this was announced on 15 September. The first formal notification in writing to the Scottish Government advising of a ban was on 29 September, 14 days after the BBC news website. Is that an indication of respectful behaviour by the United Kingdom Government? I do not believe so. If I may just also say to Mr Swinney that we did find out about the UK Government publicly announcing the timescale and the detail on 31 October and I was not made aware formally until a letter was sent on 9 November. Well, I am grateful to the minister for indicating another example of a lack of respect from the UK Government and a lack of respect and obligation to pursue the inter-governmental arrangements, which this Parliament is assured are in operation but clearly on this issue have not in any shape or form been respected. Is that a fair summary? I would say that that is a fair summary. I am interested in, obviously, there has been engagement. I can clearly understand from Mr Wilson's contribution that there is detailed Scottish Government official engagement on many of these questions in relation to dog control. Therefore, after this public announcement and inappropriate inter-governmental communication from the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Government sought to understand the implications of that legislation for Scotland to determine whether or not there would be loopholes or whether the existing dog control legislation in Scotland would suffice. Would that be a fair summary of what was going on between 15 September? And what I think is the formal response to the Scottish Government on the 14 December of giving the information that might allow the Scottish Government to form an informed view about whether or not there were loopholes? Yes, I think that you are correct, Mr Swinney. From day one, I think, and I will bring in Jim because he has been in the conversations with the DEFRA group that has been set up and we have been trying to establish ever since this was announced the consequences for Scotland with this UK legislation coming in in England and Wales. I did write in my letter to ask formally again and then you are right, we did not get a response until the 14 December and it was very unclear and vague. Jim, did you want to come in? Yes, just to come in on the back of the minister's comments. I think that one of the key concerns from a policy making perspective is around the lack of an evidence space around the risks caused by XL bullie dogs in Scotland prior to 15 September last year. There was not one Scottish stakeholder that was kind of buying down the door saying that you need to act, you need to introduce safeguards on those dogs. I have become slightly obsessed with the dog control notice, the statistical information that comes in on a weekly basis that tells me how many dog control notices have been served and which types of dogs were at the heart of the notice that has been served. XL bullie dogs have been floating about the top 10 on the list at the moment, so there are other breeds of dogs that on paper when you look at a dog being out of control that are causing more issues for local authority dog wardens, but the minister and I have met with local authority representatives to try and get a sense of how much of an issue is this in Scotland. The concerns that we are beginning to build around the XL bullie dogs have been triggered by some horrific incidents, and I absolutely accept that those are horrendous incidents, in some cases tragedies that have occurred as a consequence of a dog being dangerous out of control. However, as policy makers we need to try and think about the opportunity to make evidence-based policy making decisions, so the dog control notice regime is something that I think that the Scottish Parliament should be proud of, but I do think that there are opportunities for us to try once the dust has settled on XL bullie safeguard is to think about the challenges around responsible dog ownership and with a focus on the actual deed, not the breed. Can I pursue you further on that, Mr Wilson? I assume that in advance of the 15th of September in this announcement, that type of activity that you have just placed on the record of officials within the Scottish Government and ministers exploring what is the ideal regime for dog control within Scotland is something that you are regularly and assiduously considering, and in actual fact we are considering in dialogue with DEFRA officials in the United Kingdom Government. Absolutely. We have had some conversations with DEFRA officials around some of the work that was undertaken by my team that was looking at the operational effectiveness of the controller dogs legislation. Of course that was subject during the last parliamentary term to some scrutiny by the Public Audit Post Legislative Scrutiny Committee, so we were aware that there was a need to respond to that, and it was a helpful report. We responded to a number of the recommendations quickly, but we also recognised that official level DEFRA officials were already looking at that. It was a research report by the University of Middlesex, London, that looked at a whole host of issues around responsible dog ownership. Those conversations have been in play for many, many years, and I suppose that in relation to the point that Mr Swinney around the need to try and have a holistic look at what is it that we are going to do that will make a difference in terms of reducing the amount of incidents irrespective of breed. Those conversations have been taking place over many, many months and, in fact, years. Of course there is a need to think about opportunities for wider reform. That would require primary legislation, but it is certainly something that the minister and I are regularly at least—well, it feels like weekly at the moment, but there are regular discussions about opportunities for wider reform. My last question is on the position that the Scottish Government finds itself in now, with essentially a lack of clarity arising out of the legislation that has been enacted in England and Wales creating a problem in Scotland. Is that a fair representation of the challenge that the Scottish Government now faces given the fact that Mr Wilson has just placed on the record that there has been regular work to ensure that the dog control regime in Scotland is as appropriate and robust as it can be? Subject, of course, to further legislative change, but what has precipitated the necessity of this order coming to the Government today is the lack of clarity created by the legislation implemented in England and Wales. I would say that that is correct. I think that it is at the speed as well that concerns us, because when it was announced on the 31st of October, the first stage was the 31st of December, and then they had to the 31st of January to register for the exemption. So there have been unintended consequences since then, such as what happens if someone dies and they have got an excel bullied, which we are now dealing with through the second SSI, which the UK Government is now having to deal with. So because it was rushed through legislation, we are trying to pick up where we are now. We are hoping to implement it better than it has been done in England and Wales. There are actually now further implementation issues arising in England and Wales as a consequence of the way in which the United Kingdom Government has handled this. I have been listening very carefully to the points raised today. I wonder if the minister would agree with me that, given the actions of the UK Government not to introduce the legislation, we would have much more serious consequences if we had to. We have been pushed into a corner, and we have to introduce the legislation, and it is necessary. Would the minister agree with that? I would. As I have said, this is a decision that we have taken lightly. We have been put into this position. It is not the road that the Scottish Government would like to go. We know that it is indeed not breed. We also need to be clear that there is a horrific incident down in Essex after the UK Government implemented this legislation where a woman was killed. That dog attack happened in a home, and a lot of dog attacks actually do happen in a home. This legislation is to have them in muzzles and leads outside and bring in safeguards, which is that public safety is paramount here. We also have to acknowledge responsibility of dog ownership, and we are trying to find the balance here. Before I bring in other members, I wonder if I can touch on the point that you made about the stakeholder forum. In terms of going forward with the issue, you have clearly indicated that you have had extensive engagement with stakeholders. We all know that one of the particular issues that they have raised is around the timescales for the constraints such as muzzling in particular to be rolled out and the difficulties that that can cause for owners. Can I ask if the stakeholder forum will address some of the concerns that have been raised in particular by stakeholders? What is the purpose of the forum going forward? Before the negative SI was put in place, I have had extensive engagement with stakeholders since November. Last week, I met the National Dog Warden Association, which has a variety of stakeholders there, and I am due to meet them every month moving forward. I am keen to continue to engage with stakeholders. It might not be an ideal situation for them, but to learn lessons and see how we can implement the legislation with stakeholders in mind. I know that they are assisting us with the legislation for the second SSI regarding usuring. It is very important that we continue engagement. I am going to open it up to other members and invite Christine Grahame if you would like to ask any questions. I am interested in the committee's questions. I just think that this is a complete mess. We have had to ask questions because the law of itself is a mess. Had there not been issues—I have taken on board all the processes with the UK Government—about a so-called, and I put a quote that is dumping because I do not like the term, bully exiled type dogs in Scotland? Would the minister have proceeded, as I think I have asked frequently, to take a good look at the control of dog Scotland act, which I was the author? To see if that could be tightened up even more. In particular, I hope that the committee is aware of section 9 of that act, entitled, dangerous or unresponsive dogs. That applies within the home, and as you rightly say, things happen within the home tax. However, that applies within the home. The regulations adopted from the UK, if they are adopted today, do not apply in the home. This section applies where an authorised officer takes the view that a dog control notice here is not suitable. That has to go to court and let the court decide that this dog may or may not have to be put down or some other issue taken. It also gives the owner the right of appeal. In fact, if there was any issue in Scotland with bully exiles minister, would that not have been suitable to use that? Had it not been the position about your concerns about excessive dogs coming up to Scotland? One of the things that we had concerns about initially with the announcement of the ban down south was the salute poll, which we were trying to get certainty on, which we didn't get until the 12th or 14th of December. Sorry, I can't remember the exact date now. That was the reason that we did have concerns. That's where I wrote my letter on the 14th of November. I did feel confident at that stage on 31 December, because we've got the dog control notices through the local authorities, who have the powers to deal with dangerous dogs locally, that we were really in the same position as England and Wales. I think that what we didn't envisage was people bringing up exiled bully dogs during the Christmas period, and then obviously community safety has to be paramount. This is why this decision has been made. I'll come to that, but I should possibly have made the statement of my registered interests, as I'm a member of the SSPCA and a patron of the Edinburgh Dog and Catwil, but I assure you that I've come to this with an objective mind, I hope. Can I ask, then, which organisations have opposed the regulations that are coming in, just to list them, if you would, minister? Yes, well, I think that one of the initial questions where I said the groups from the UK Government group that was set up are in Scotland. I'm going to bring Jim in here, because there's so many, and I don't think that there's concerns being raised, but not formally opposed. In terms of Scottish stakeholders, and just to provide a bit of context on what I'm about to say, we held some regional engagements in Helensborough, Dundee, Gallishales, with a whole host of interested stakeholders. This was not just about exiled bully dogs, this was about how local organisations, key stakeholders, can work better together. I'll ask you specifically about the regulations, because I know about these other meetings. I'll give an example. I've had regular conversations with SSPCA, who do not support and like the policy. They understand why the decision is being made, but it's fair to say that that probably reflects the views of a number of welfare stakeholders that have a presence in Scotland, mainly through the dog control coalition. They have made similar points to the UK Government when they were considering the controls that were going to be introduced in England and Wales. We have lots and lots of concerns that are raised around any moves that look at breed specific legislation, so that continues to be very contentious. A number of Scottish stakeholders have been quite open and very honest about their views on the policy that they do not like, but they understand that there's an opportunity to work with the Scottish Government to try and mitigate the impacts of any unintended consequences as those safeguards are introduced. As the regulations will enter into the ambit of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, what was the view of those organisations on the efficacy of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which already has named beads in it? The key thing is that this is the first addition to the list of prohibited dogs in over 30 years, so it's certainly not a decision that's been taken or made lightly. I think that the challenge that we have is that when we look at statistical information that comes in from Public Health Scotland that tells me information that's reported from local health boards, how many people have been admitted to hospital as a consequence of a dog bite or admitted to accident and emergency, the figures are concerning. I asked about the efficacy of that act. It's got many opponents. I think that we are in a position where any suggested reforms to the 1991 act would need to be very carefully considered. I do not think that we are currently in a position that we are looking at any significant and fundamental changes to the policy under the 1991 act. However, we are looking very seriously at the opportunities to strengthen and enhance the control of dogs act legislation, but I don't know if the minister wants to comment on that. Yes, absolutely. As Ms Graham knows, that this has not been an easy decision or a decision, that has been taken lightly. I don't like to go away from the deed, not breed, which the Scottish Government does support, but we find ourselves in this unique position that we have to do this because of community safety and the loophole that has been created by this legislation. However, I know that I have met Ms Graham once all this legislation has gone through. I am very keen to work together to see how we can reform and strengthen your dog control Scotland act as well moving forward. We are looking at the consequences of some of this in England now. You mentioned 200 dogs. Those dogs were put down. In England, some 200 dogs have been put down by their owners, and they get money from the Government to do it. What is the BVA's position on this? What are the vet's positions on this? The vet's positions are not like putting down the dogs? No, they do not. This is one of the concerns that has been raised at stakeholders' engagement. I do not know that after the 61,000 that have been registered and over 200 have decided not to keep them. I do not know specifically if they have all been put down. I do not know, Jim, if you know that detail. The compensation scheme, which will be formed part of the second of the Scottish statutory instrument. I have been littering. I want to... Quite right to highlight the figure. It is difficult to gauge how many exo-bully dogs might be coming into that particular situation, if we can call it that, where for whatever reason the dog owners have decided that they do not want to apply for exemption certificate and they go down a different path. I will go back to the point about the engagement that we have had with animal welfare stakeholders. They have quite fairly raised a number of concerns around the ethical and practical concerns that have been faced by vets, who are being tasked in certain cases and appreciate their numbers are not huge, but that is still a high number of dogs that have been euthanised. The concern is that they are ultimately dealing with a dog that they might deem to be perfectly well behaved. It is not aggressive and it is perfectly healthy. I know that, in context, 61,000 applications for exemption, over 200 for compensation. I do not know what the numbers will be for Scotland, because there is a large degree of uncertainty around the exo-bully population. Figures that were quoted at the Eiffel Committee on 18 October, which was a one-off evidence session on exo-bully dogs, revealed that the number of exo-bully dogs could be between anything, between 50,000 and 150,000. Welfare stakeholders that they have engaged with have offered a range in terms of what they think the figure could be, but there is a huge degree of uncertainty as to the actual population. I will just ask the final one, if I may, because I have come to thinking why I hope to get to make a little submission at the end, is that the huge problem here is saying exo-bully type dog. I have looked at the confirmation paragraphs. It is paragraphs. You would need a PhD to work out if your dog was a bully exo-type, if he did not know its history. I am going to ask the minister this. Do you have concerns? There is quite a lot of sensationalism around about this, and I want to look at this with a cool head for the sake of everybody. Appalled attacks. Do you have concerns that members of the public will wrongly identify—if this goes through, people have to muzzle their dogs and leech in public places—that the public will wrongly identify a dog as an exo-bully type and get onto the place of the local authority, big stramash locally in the community? It turns out to be nothing of the kind or has to be DNA tested. I do have concerns. This has been raised with me from day one regarding the definition of an exo-bully. That is why we want to be very clear moving forward, especially on our Scottish Government website. The description is done to be able to support people to identify whether they have an exo-bully or not. You are totally correct. It has been sensationalised in the last couple of months of being newspaper articles and on television, and the supposed exo-bullies would not identify through the definition the height. I do think that this has caused confusion with the general public as well. Is it not a basic principle of law that it should be clear and understood but not confused? That is what we are trying to do through the Scottish website as we move forward with this legislation. Minister, I challenge you that—I am not laying the fault here—we are replicating something in England, but what is wrong in England as well, by the way—it is bad law there, it is bad law here, if it comes into force—is that if it cannot unravel this because we come to the kernel of this, which is what is a bully exel, and nobody in this room can actually give a clear, simple definition. That is key to any legislation, particularly when you are taking away people's rights, particularly when you are criminalising them, particularly when animals are going to be put down or dumped by people who do not do it. It is for a few, not the many here, because there are many exel bullies in Scotland. That is my huge concern about this. The cost is so bad, because the definition is not clear—it is bad law—and cannot come into force, I hope, in Scotland. I will be supporting government moves, but with not any great enthusiasm, based on a precautionary approach to legislation. I have a number of exel bullie dog owners contact me, but I have also other concerned members of the public, because I have seen both sides of this debate from constituents who have made representations to me. Clearly, dog and animal welfare groups and expert groups all went through from the DEFRA working group in England, pursuing a ban due to concerns over the poor quality of that legislation and its rushed nature by the UK Government. It is clearly far from perfect to call it, and perfect would be a compliment to the UK legislation. The Scottish legislation is going to have very similar issues. It might be that weak legislation is better than no legislation, based on the precautionary principle that I have mentioned. However, I have a constituent minister who has got two exel bullie type dogs—a responsible owner, I am sure—through no fault of their own, they are going to have to move home. They will have a situation in which they will struggle, not because they have an exel bullie type dog, but because social landlords do not like taking dogs into tenancies and neither do some private landlord. They may have an invidious choice somewhere down the line in relation to their two dogs to euthanise their dogs to prioritise a home. My understanding is that this statutory instrument does not provide an exemption for my constituent, which is of concern, but there will be a further statutory instrument coming down the line on what exemptions will be being looked at. Is this something that the Scottish Government can look at and will look at? One of the things that has been raised by stakeholders as well, and you will know about the rehoming centres and the possibility for allowing them to have the extension that they could rehome exel bullies, is that, unfortunately, in the circumstances that we currently find ourselves in, if that loophole was opened, it would allow dogs to be brought up to rehoming places to be distributed throughout Scotland. That is something that we can look at with the implementation group, but I would have concerns. I do not know, Jim, if you want to come in on that. I do thank the minister and it was something that was reflected on in terms of the fairly recent engagement with Mr Doris and Mr McGregor and represented us in badly gardens that the minister and I engaged. The point was really well made during that conversation around the challenges and unintended consequences when it comes to housing. This is an issue that we are aware of because we are raised at official level with the UK Government, deaf officials. I have seen some support of messaging on certain council websites in England that have suggested that, as long as the owners follow the process, they have the exemption certificate and the tier strictly to the conditions, there would be no impact. However, we do recognise that we need to work through what does this really mean for Scottish owners of exel bullie dogs if they have any concerns around housing. We have been in touch with the Scottish Government's housing policy to ensure that this is a live issue and that we are trying to look at ways to mitigate any issues that might arise from the new safeguards that are coming in. However, it is a point that is really well made. I recognise that there are knock-on effects as a consequence of this policy on owners and we are trying to do what we can to mitigate any issues that do arise. Let me push a little bit more on this minister in terms of where flexibility and discretion can be used and whether that can be described as a loophole. I think that there are two different things. If we define legislation tightly and do it well, it is not a loophole, it is appropriate flexibility and discretion. For example, if someone has a private tenancy and the landlord wishes to take possession of that home to stay in it themselves and that individual becomes homeless through no fault of their own, that is all clearly evidence based. That would not be a loophole. That would be a very clear element of flexibility that could be shown. I know that you cannot legislate for individual cases, minister, but we should at least be looking to try to legislate along different themes. I do not think that if we legislate for housing situations in England, there is any way whatsoever that is a loophole for people who are bringing dogs from England to Scotland. I do not understand that, but I would ask a little bit more about how Government will work with representatives of large dog breed owners such as experts at Bradley Gardens. I am not sure that representatives of large dog breed owners are mentioned as part of that implementation group. I think that that would be a worthwhile endeavour. Rather than engaging with them, having them at the table would be a worthwhile endeavour. One of the things that I have mentioned earlier, the unintended consequences of the legislation, the issue with whom someone dies and, for example, where does it excel? Those are things that are being considered and, as Jim has already outlined, we will be considering moving forward. I do not know whether we have the implementation group and it could be a very worthy consideration to include those groups. I do not know Jim your view on that. No, I made clear during the conversation with Bradley Gardens that we will continue to engage. We need to be mindful that there are huge levels of stakeholder interest in the general policy going forward. It is trying to work through any emerging issues or concerns and possible barriers to smooth implementation of the new safeguards that we need to speak and continue to speak with a very wide range of stakeholder interests. It is clear that there was on-going dialogue with DEFRA already about wider reform in relation to dog control in Scotland but also a potential pan-UK approach to that. Were representatives of large dog breed owners have they been engaged in any of those discussions because, myself and Mr MacGregor, when we met with Bradley Gardens and the minister and yourself, Mr Wilson, they were really up for reform of the system in Scotland. They really wanted to be challenged but they wanted to innovate and really transform the system in Scotland. Their expertise is surely crucial in taking forward some much-needed reforms. Absolutely. One of the things that I want to move forward with after the dust settles on all of this is the reform regarding dangerous dogs. I am also very keen to work with Jim Fairlie, who is the new minister for animal welfare as well. I know that he has only just gone into his role for a few days but I will be having a meeting with him as soon as I can to see how we can work together moving forward. You are totally right. Moving forward is going to be very important that we engage with all stakeholders, including the groups that you deal with as well. I am aware of time. We have a very full agenda today. However, I am also aware that this is a very important issue and there is some significant public interest in it. I am going to open up to members if there are any final small supplementary questions that you would like to ask. My question relates to the formal status of the different guidance, which of course does not refer to in the order. Christine Grahame referred to the issue of good law being clear law. We can expect in the criminal courts that defence agents will be disputing whether a particular dog is or is not. An exel bullion will be arguing that it is not. Christine Grahame referred to DNA testing. Could you confirm exactly what the formal status of the different guidance is and whether the intention is to continue to rely on guidance of that nature once the second SSI comes forward, or whether there will be something more substantial put together, or how will that be clarified in terms of how the courts will interpret that legislation. Could you clarify the formal status of the guidance? The UK Government's DEFRA guidance that came up with the group, which we know the stakeholders, we are not keen on and did remove them from the group. That is the guidance where, as I have already stated, with the measurement guidance for the male and the female and the measurements of being an exel bully on the website. We have copied that through the Scottish Government website, but moving forward we would like to be… What is the formal status of it? In the courts, what approach will it take? Is that the strongest way to embed a legislation and law, or maybe the official would want to come in on that? The guidance is ultimately a document that will be considered if someone was to, let's just say, appeal if they were suggested that they were in possession of a prohibited type of dog and they disagreed. Ultimately, there will be cases once the full regime kicks into play on 1 August. Someone who may be going through a court process could challenge the fact that they don't think that the dog in question is actually a prohibited type. Similar to what the UK Government has done and our position will be the same, is that there will be a reliance on guidance that is being developed for the government? Because England is obviously ahead of us on this. Do you know if there are any cases that have been taken as yet? There's one thing that I can say on that, because there will be, and it's something that you've had to obviously look at in terms of, well, what happens if it comes to light that someone seeks a specialist assessment and it turns out that the dog in question wasn't actually a prohibited type. What, therefore, will need to then do, and what we would obviously want to consider is that, in terms of the exemption process, what would be the deregistration route in cases where it's might be being legally challenged and the courts may have determined that? I'm actually more concerned with the criminal courts and what is an offence and what isn't an offence, and how that—I want strong legislation that is easily interpreted by a court, and that's why I'm asking the question, and that's why I'm asking what is the status of this guidance? How will a court determine what is an Excel bully dog and what isn't— They would obviously have to look at the confirmation standard guidance that has been produced. Thank you. Sharon Dowey and then Russell Finlay. Thank you. Can I just clarify something you said earlier on? There's groups, rehoming centres that are concerned that come Friday they would need to get dogs pretty to sleep, but when you were talking earlier on you'd said something about rehoming, would they be able to seek an exemption for those in their care? Does that mean that on come Friday rehoming centres can still keep the dogs they've got, they won't need to be put to sleep? Ultimately decisions on what rehoming centres do with dogs in their care will be up to them, but legally what we have stressed in Scottish Government guidance is that owners will be able to retain their dogs come 23 February, but the detail around the exemptions that would apply or can be used as part of the exemption process by rehoming centres will allow them legally to actually consider whether they want to retain and keep the dog in their care, so it's not an automatic put the dog to sleep and we'll have stressed this. Those are issues that we've discussed with dog control coalition with all the key welfare stakeholders that are clearly interested in what the Scottish Government's policy is going to be around the exemption process, but there will be, as we've heard earlier in cases in England and Wales, they did have over 200 applications for compensation which would have resulted in dogs being euthanised, so just to try and separate out the first stage of the safeguards is that it produces the requirement for owners to ensure that their dogs are muzzled, kept on the lead in a public place, but further detail is to come down the track very, very quickly in terms of the second instrument that will detail what actually happens for those going through the exemption process and a compensation scheme as well, so I mean I know that regulations are at an advanced stage in terms of being drafted, so it'll be sooner or further later, but I can't give a specific date as to when the regulations will be laid because ultimately the minister has to consider and sign them up. If I can just give a little bit of clarity there, I think I'm not sure if it was the unintended consequence of maybe somebody dying and then having an exhale bully and then being able to re-home it, but as of this, I think the SPCA had four exhale bullies in the last couple of weeks that they've been trying to re-home before this Friday because they will have to adhere to the legislation that comes into place regarding re-homing. So another question, go back on to my previous questions. I can understand that there is frustration if you heard about the implementation of the new legislation through the BBC because I know from being in the Scottish Government that it's very frustrating when you hear announcements through the BBC rather than through a ministerial statement in the chamber, but can I just ask, you only wrote a letter to the UK Government in the 14th of November, but you've chose not to engage at all with the UK Government? Why have you just been engaging weekly? I've been engaging with stakeholders since this was announced. But you've engaged with stakeholders, but you've chosen not to engage at all with ministers and Westminster? It wasn't that I chose not to specifically meet with them. I was getting updated on a weekly basis, and when I found out that the legislation was going to be put in place in England and Wales, I had no detail of it. At that stage, I'd said to Jim that I want to meet all stakeholders now just to get the view on what's happening in the England and Wales. And I've lived, I've breathed, I've dreamt exhale bully dogs since last November, but it wasn't. I just didn't want to meet the UK Government. I was just watching exactly what was happening and implementing it down south. I'm just wondering about the loophole, because again, that was highlighted that it could have been an issue. If you'd engaged with the UK ministers, would you have expected the UK Government to legislate for crimes that would potentially have been committed in Scotland? I would have thought that that would have been under our remit. At the moment, it would seem that if you re-home a dog, if you abandon a dog, if you don't register the dog, that's an offence in England and Wales. I think that they had said that if somebody then came to Scotland with their dog, it's not an offence in Scotland, so they couldn't legislate for that. Would you have expected England or the UK Government to legislate for something that was in Scotland? Is that not why they were trying to engage with you, so that we could put something in place here? That was one of our concerns initially when the announcement was made. I know that, as Jim has been meeting with him on a weekly basis, he was trying to get clarity regarding that. He didn't come back saying that we can't legislate in Scotland as such. When I got the letter on 14 December, it was very unclear and vague to the response that we'd been asking for for months regarding that. I wouldn't be expecting the UK Government to legislate for Scotland, but me not meeting the UK Government ministers was not intentional for any constitutional reason. It was just because I was looking at legislation, looking at what's happening in Scotland and engaging with stakeholders and engaging with Jim on a weekly basis to be kept updated. If you weren't concerned about the safety concerns when the UK Government was putting in the legislation, what's changed between then and now for you to now be implementing the legislation? Do you have figures on how many dogs were actually getting brought across to Scotland? No, we don't. As I've already reiterated it, I was confident when the legislation was announced on 31 October, but I was formally told in mid-November that, through the dog control notices that we have in place through the local authorities that would have the same safeguards in place for 31 December that England and Wales had in place. When I was engaging even with stakeholders down south, they were wishing that they had DCNs in place in England and Wales, like Scotland does here. I felt confident with that. I think that one of the points that serious consideration was taken was when we saw over the Christmas period and we don't have any stats exactly on how many Excel bullies were brought up, but we did see it on social media and for a community safety issue. I have to say that an animal welfare issue for dogs just to be brought up in vans with no history, they don't know where they're going, into new households, that would cause anxiety. It was a considered option that we had to move forward, primarily for community safety, but for animal welfare for the Excel bully dogs as well. We don't have any figures at all, so we don't know if it's 10 dogs, 100 dogs, 1,000 dogs, we don't have anything at all. We're just on social media, so it's very hard to collect data from social media. I don't know, Jamie, if you've got any. There's simply no system recording the data in terms of the movement of dogs between coming from England and Wales to Scotland, but we have noticed significant traffic on social media with cases that have been, whether it was on X or other social media platforms that they were indicating that, in some cases, there would be individuals transporting large numbers of dogs without actually seeing how many from England to Scotland. This became a significant concern, especially after the festive break, so when that milestone date for the UK Government's policy that kicked in on 31 December, we were certainly seeing more and more traffic on social media and press reports about efforts to re-home a number of dogs in these dogs being brought to Scotland. I'm just going back to the point that Mr Owie raises that there's no central recording system that would allow me to track movement of dogs from one country to another. Very quick question. Today, you've told us that there's been a lack of respect towards the Scottish Government, and I think that we're perhaps slightly losing sight of what this is about. This is about preventing children, adults being maimed and killed by Excel bullies, and surely you agree that public protection is paramount rather than seeking constitutional issues or bruised eagles within the Scottish Government? I don't agree with Mr Finlay's perception of how things have come, but I agree that community safety is paramount here. It is not where we have found ourselves to have been from rushed legislation. In an ideal world, the UK Government would have got in touch with the Scottish Government and said, look, these are our proposals, let's work together, and that's the way it would have been done with Wales and Northern Ireland as well. That's not the way that it happened. Sure, but it was in the public domain in mid-September. You could have acted quicker if you'd chosen to instead. We had no detail in mid-September. Even the UK Government didn't have the detail in mid-September. Your officials have got connections, working connections with officials in the UK level. It just sounds like excuses. I'm sorry, it's not an excuse. Fulton MacGregor and then Pauline McNeill. I don't think that it's fair to split the argument between people who are doing this because it's for public safety and that other people who have maybe got concerns about the legislation, such as myself, are saying that they are implying that they therefore don't have concerns about public safety. The point that I made at the very beginning was that the animal organisations, the experts, are saying that they don't believe that the bill will make matters more safer. I wanted to come on the back of Russell Finlay's last line of questions to say that we should unite and say that everybody around this table and everybody involved in this debate has got public safety at the heart. I disagree on the legislation, but I don't know anybody. Either side should take a moral high ground. The question that I've got is quite a brief one. We're obviously in a general election year, Minister. The Labour Party may form the next Government, we don't know. Given the concerns about this legislation from stakeholders and it's probably going to run in more difficulties as it goes along, if a new Government in the UK are to remove this legislation, where do we stand? I guess what I really want to know is, is there a possibility that we could be left with this legislation when the rest of the UK isn't at any point in future? I know that it's a very hypothetical, theoretical question with a lot of moving parts, but I do not need your discussion to ask that, because I think that that would be a really ironic situation if we end up with the legislation here and it's removed elsewhere. Yes, and I think that it's very hypothetical, but it is worth consideration moving forward when we do have a general election. I don't know, Jimmy, if you wanted to maybe give the background about the court case. Yes, absolutely. We are aware that the policy that was introduced by the UK Government was actually subject to legal challenge, where a campaign group called Don't Ban Me licensed me that had pressed for a rethink and, I think, the latest position when I last spoke to DEFRA officials last Friday is that they expect the campaign group that had been considered by the courts, but the policy was not going to go through a judicial review process, but the campaign group are going to appeal that decision that's been made by the courts. I suppose that it's difficult to work out looking at this, I suppose, through a political lens where future policy might be made in relation to dog control or dangerous dogs. I think that one thing has been cleared, though, in terms of the official level, the opportunity to have that discussion on a four-nations basis. The weekly engagement with the UK Government DEFRA policy team is just to stress that it's not just between UK Government and Scottish Government. There are representatives from the Welsh Assembly Government and representatives from Northern Ireland who engage on a weekly basis. There are opportunities to perhaps look at a more holistic approach, maybe on a four-nations basis when we think about policy development, but I can't control the politics of what might play out in the weeks and months ahead. The 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act has cited as an example in public law as poorly drafted rust legislation. I remember that from studying at Strathclyde. I agree with Fulton MacGregor on what we're all concerned about is public safety, so we need to get it right this time. I didn't think he answered Katie Clark's question, which was really—if there was a legal challenge, this is where we're coming from, as to whether this is an exiled bully dog or not. Could a lawyer run circles around the notion that the definition is in guidance and not in the law? In being in mind, I've just seen the SSI. It's very sparse. We haven't seen the primary legislation, so can the court rely on the website where the guidance is held as a solid foundation for defining what an exiled bully dog is? I will give to Jim because Jim will deal with the lawyers and what the SSI is in place. I think that we can only look at—again, I'm trying to compare what's actually happened in England and Wales as a consequence of their policy, especially around concerns around the confirmation standard. The case that was brought forward by the campaign group did not legally test the policy because the courts determined that there would be no application for judicial review had been refused, so the campaign group was obviously pressed for an appeal to be made against that decision. I don't know what will play out legally around the concerns that were raised by the campaign group, but the confirmation standard that we have is obviously the same as that was developed by the DEFRA-led expert group. Do you think that the same position—would you not expect to see a definition if it's so important to decide which dogs are covered and which are not in the SSI or referred to in the SSI? We'd run the risk if we had a different type of confirmation standard that will create confusion and potentially if there was a significant move away from what's contained within the UK Government standard. That will potentially cause confusion. We have heard from organisations such as Bedley Gardens who had suggested that, in other jurisdictions in Europe, the definition is different. We get into the measurements of the dogs, so I just think that we need to try to ensure that there is a consistency of approach when it comes to the confirmation standard across the UK. That I fully understand makes complete sense, but England could be in the same position, which is that, in arguing over what the definition is, if the guidance is not seen as legal—there's just guidance—surely that can be challenged. It has been challenged, but the legal challenge was unsuccessful up to this point. We've had—there's a lot that we're not going to be able to cover. I mean, there's a lot—for example, some who are concerned about legislation talk about the 72 per cent of fatal attacks that take place in the home, concerns about what this will mean for those who've got dogs in terms of their requirement to exercise and so on. There's been no discussion so far about—I have a very little knowledge only of what I've been gathering since this became an issue—what an excel bulldog is. Any discussions about why people are breeding dogs like this—is there any discussion about whether you then have to maybe tackle the breeders? I can understand their concerns now to some extent. You said earlier, Jim, where there's been no evidence of history. There might not even be an excel bulldog. There might be borderline, but a large dog who's not aggressive, but maybe tackling the breeders has been part of the discussion. It has been part of the discussion. As we know—I think we have to just also reiterate just again that there are lots of excel bully owners that are responsible. There's very few that are not responsible, but the issue of breeding has come up in my conversations with stakeholders and animal welfare as well. Under my remit, it's specifically dangerous dogs. This is where I'm keen to work with Jim Fairlie under animal welfare moving forward because it has been very topical in the last couple of months and it's something that I think we need to look at. Just finally, if it's reported by someone's neighbour that that person—my next door neighbour has an excel bully dog—is not complying with the regulations now and that's reported to the police, does that mean that the police will have powers then to come and examine the dog? Is that the process? Then I just wanted to understand what happens. I had discussions yesterday with Police Scotland regarding this specific issue with Jim as well, and I'll bring him in in a minute. We are moving forward. We've set up the implementation group that I think met for the first time yesterday. We have Police Scotland local authorities and COSLAW on board to see how we can implement it because I do understand that there are some concerns about police capacity going out to see every single dog, so we're going to see how we can work with local authorities as well. There is what's called the joint protocol between Police Scotland and local authorities that has existed for a number of years. That is a document that's produced in a fairly high level way. It's non-statutory status, but it does set out who does what when it comes to investigating incidents where a dog is either out of control or dangerously out of control, but at the first meeting of the implementation forum yesterday, we did strike agreement that it would seem like a very good opportunity to revisit the joint protocol to set out the operational responses to what happens when a member of the public phones up if they have concerns about a suspected exerbilly dog, if we can use it as an example, where did the turn? So we recognise that there has been quite significant interest from members of the public already that are either writing into the Scottish Government or will be seeking at least a route to take if they have public safety concerns around a particular dog. I think the one challenge that we have is trying to determine what that demand might be on police and on local authorities if there are dogs that might become ditched, abandoned and again it goes against the backdrop of a large degree of uncertainty around the actual population of exerbilly dogs at the moment. So implementation forum is a good place in terms of trying to tackle issues whether that's around kenneling capacity, whether that's around any operational challenge that could be faced because of soaring demand in terms of numbers of calls from the public for example. So I think that we do have the right individuals on that forum but take on board the points that have been raised earlier around the need to actually ensure that there is wider engagement because it's a very complex policy area. It's generated a lot of passionate viewpoints from various stakeholders that we continue to engage with from members of the public but we're trying to make the information easily accessible for people. Question of, so given what the discussion we've had about the definition, someone reports a cry that this could be an exerbilly dog, the police have the powers to go and presumably examine the dog but they'll have to examine the dog. The purposes of this SSI is against definition held in the guidance given the measurements that the minister talked about and make a determination then as to whether they think it is a bully dog or not and then if they think it is then they then have to take the steps because the owner has not complied. Does that sound right? Yeah and just very very briefly I know that dog legislation officers on England and Wales that actually have to do some upskilling training to give them ultimately the tools and the confidence to undertake the assessment of exerbilly dogs. This is an issue that we've discussed yesterday with Police Scotland and just to stress that when the minister will be having further engagements with Police Scotland going forward so it won't just be at official level through that implementation forum, there will be opportunities for the minister to engage with COSLA through Councillor Chalmers and also Police Scotland officials and well senior officials going forward. Thank you very much. Okay thank you very much so that completes our evidence taking on the SSI. So our next item of business is to consider a motion to annul the dangerous dogs designated types Scotland order of 2024. So a motion to annul has been lodged in the name of Christine Graham. So having had the opportunity now to question the minister on the SSI I'm now going to invite the committee to dispose of the motion to annul. So I invite Christine Graham to move motion one to one zero six in her name and make any brief additional comments that she was just to make. Thank you very much convener. I should declare interest as the author of the control of dogs Scotland act 2010 which was about public protection and intervening early. I move my motion to null but before I give my reasoning let me emphasise that like everyone around this table I'm horrified by dog attacks on people or on other animals so that's not in question. However the proposed regulation is not the answer and the line of questioning I've heard around this table demonstrates that this is bad law and I say kindly I hope to Sharon Dowey it's bad law in England and Wales I'm not getting into constitutional debates I'm interested in law and if I get passionate about this it's not passion without purpose it's passion about this parliament delivering good legislation and what I've heard around this table from many maybe not all but from many is this is not good legislation because at the very centre of this is a definition that nobody can give a bully exel bully type dog defined in paragraphs whether it's guidance not we don't know and it's so complicated that you can't amend it because one thing I've learned about bad law is you can't amend it I take you back to the offensive behaviour of football match unfortunately I've been here so long I remember all these things it was bad law from start to finish and it started out in exactly the same trajectory as this sensationalism hasty brought forward at least evidence was challenged on it by the committee I chaired that committee but at the end of the day it was repealed now I'm looking at all the things here that are wrong but the big thing of course is definition and Katie Clark's quite right law must be clear must be clear for individuals for the courts for everybody this is a boorach there's nothing clear about this at all and what's bothering me is we'll almost have public policing I listen carefully to you about how many have come up here nobody knows you're looking on social media and the newspapers the day I take evidence for legislation based on social media and newspaper headlines is the day I pack in caring what we've got to look at here is was there a better way to do this yes there was the control of dog Scotland act should have been tightened up ages ago there may have been other ways to deal with any dogs being brought up I don't know minister hasn't said perhaps you may might have looked for licensing we don't have a national microchipping database I've gone on about this for ages if we had that national microchipping database you could identify dogs that were not indigenous to Scotland but the problem too apart from all that is not bad enough is the unintended consequences now folk McGregor I know you're very unhappy about this folk McGregor's pinnany's hopes the fact that perhaps Labour gets in their pin in their hopes Labour to get into Westminster they might repeal it but in the meantime what will have happened dogs will have been put down others will have been neutered people will have been persecuted because that social media which is providing this very flimsy evidence of the number of dogs coming up will be a hot spot for people reporting people I've seen my neighbour or such and such they've got an XL bully dog because they don't talk about type people talk about XL bully dogs if it's set in stone they'll be reporting neighbours and what will happen the police who if in sake have got another plate will be sent out to measure a dug with a tape measure to see if it complies to the confirmation that's been invented by invented by different and then if they say well we think it's an XL bully but of course it's got that confirmation person so but no I know my dog's history it's actually a cross between a lopser and a staffie I know because I knew the mother and father and the parents of the dog there we go we go to court there will be court cases and I know what the court will say about this legislation and about this parliament and about this committee by the way and I accept you've been pushed into a corner but when you're pushed into a corner sometimes minister the thing to do is not just throw your arms in there and I know what the position is but to do something different and for me to annul this sends a message to good people south of the border who know it's rubbish and who know it's going to be very very painful and you can and even at the end of the day if you're an unscrupulous breeder and an unscrupulous owner and there are a few most people are not but a few you'll just say okay I'll breed a dog that can be a fighting status symbol that isn't 20 inches or 19 inches whatever I'll make it 18 inches doesn't comply that's what's so stupid about this legislation so I have to say I've been a quarter of a century in this parliament people might say is a quarter of a century too long I've endured so much poor legislation from the offensive behaviour of football match which had that hasty start to the ignominious finish and I'm watching this other one that's why I'm so angry about it because you know sitting round this table this isn't good this isn't good legislation so I'm saying to the committee my goodness this is radical stuff I'm saying I hope you came in here with your mind made up to rubber stamp this well all the concerns you've mentioned all the difficulties will still rubber stamp it in the hope that something can be done later you don't do that you annull it and you look a different way to deal with the number of dogs which we don't know what they are that are coming up from England you stop dogs being dumped you stop dogs being put down you stop good people who have got dogs lived happily with their neighbours for years and their neighbours saying who you can excel bully hen I'm the living next door to you anymore I mean this is the kind of thing that happens when you do stupid things with legislation so I'm asking you to annull us I'm asking the committee to come back and consider a better way forward in the interest Russell in the interest of public safety which is paramount but just legislation that doesn't demonise a breed which we don't know what it is and doesn't demonise owners who are good people that's my position and move the motion thank you very much okay I'm now going to invite other members if they would like to come back in and make any further remarks I would at this point just highlight that given that we're potentially moving into a debate I would just have to remind Mr Wilson that he won't be able to to come in so can I ask any other members if they'd like to come in Russell Finlay just very very quickly I was addressed by Christine directly so I felt it would be rude not to I believe this legislation is needed and urgently because it needs to address the risk of public safety which we all agree on where we disagree is how we how we do that but I think if you look at it please Scotland in the past four weeks I've had to shoot dead two dogs in the street both of which may or may not be exiled bullies and I know there's a issue of definition but if you look at the Bullywatch UK material that's widely available a lot of that does go some way to explaining that I find it disappointing that the Scottish Government didn't act quicker and I know there's a lot of to and fro about that today and I won't reheat that and all said you know having heard everything I think it's important that we do support this measure thank you thank you thank you just to say that I really appreciate Christine Grahame's input there I felt it was very very powerful and you can see that just the amount of work that she's done in this whole area also she made a comment herself I just wanted to clarify I'm not pinning my hopes on a Labour backtrack on this it was a hypothetical question I have every feeling that a new government might not be top of the priority list if and when that government changes I'm sure disappointingly for Christine Grahame I will be not voting for the annulment today and that is because I agree almost entirely with what she said but the one bit where I disagree is that I think that the government have been backed into a corner on this and really at this point in time this is the prudent move to make just now however I do also I've also heard the minister's commitment both meetings with myself and today in the committee that she wants to work through some of the issues that have come up to get to a better place further down the line but with the with the UK government passing this legislation at such a pace I think that and the fact that whether they were recorded or not or they've came from social media exile bullies have come up and brought up people have tried to evade the law in England by bringing them up to Scotland and I think it puts us in a very very difficult position for that so on the basis of playing it really safe and nothing more I will be not voting for the annulment but supporting the government okay thank you John Swinney thank you convener Christine Graham has ever made a formidable strong contribution to the debate today and I share her aspirations and anxiety to be assured about public safety and I associate myself entirely with the concerns that she's expressed about the impact on individuals as a consequence of attacks where these take place so I am at one with Christine Graham and I think actually with all members of the committee about the concerns about public safety and the importance of acting in this respect I think the minister and Mr Wilson have demonstrated entirely clearly and convincingly to the committee that the Scottish government is undertaking regular and assidious work on dog control to ensure that we have in place in Scotland the appropriate measures through the dog control notice regime indeed from the legislation that Christine Graham herself pioneered through this Parliament so I think the public at Scotland should take from this evidence session a great deal of clarity and assurance about the attention to detail that the government is placing and its ministers and officials on the way in which dog control issues have to be managed but unfortunately the Scottish government has been put in an entirely impossible situation by the actions of the United Kingdom government who have with absolutely no consultation embarked on this approach which has directly created a loophole which has implications for public safety in Scotland that is the source of the loophole and the problem and the threat to public safety so if that issue is not addressed by this committee today and this is where I unfortunately part company with my dear friend and colleague Christine Graham we are in danger of increasing the risk to public safety so I think the government's case has been made convincingly in that respect because without closing this loophole that's been created by the actions of the United Kingdom government there is the risk of dogs being transferred to Scotland without proper support without proper training without proper assistance without proper engagement with their owners in an abrupt and distressing fashion and I can only imagine that that runs the risk of increasing the risks to public safety now if the United Kingdom government had thought more carefully about this legislation and instead of sending letters to Scottish ministers providing a lack of clarity and indeed from some news reports that I now read essentially highlighting the loophole that they themselves have proudly created if instead of writing these absurd and provocative letters United Kingdom government ministers had actually thought about making sure the loophole wasn't created in the first place in the English legislation then this committee would not be considering this issue today because the arguments that Christine Graham put forward would have had more strength around about the law, there were very strong arguments but the source of the loophole is the cavalier behaviour of the United Kingdom government so some people might think that this is about constitutional questions but for me this gets to the nub of the reckless behaviour that this parliament is now on the receiving end of from the United Kingdom government this is an example of shocking disrespect for the powers of this parliament a shocking disregard for intergovernmental working when I get a lecture in this parliament from one of my opponents again about the fact that there's something wrong with the engagement of the Scottish government with the UK government I'm going to cite this because this is an example of shocking disrespect for the process of decision making within the United Kingdom shocking disregard for the intergovernmental frameworks that are supposed to be our protection so to anybody looking at this and thinking that all is well in the way in which this parliament relates to the other parliaments and governments of the United Kingdom this is a wake-up call because this is an example of a UK government that creates mayhem by its actions and doesn't care about the consequences for the devolved settlement so I'm afraid reluctantly I won't be in a position to support Christine Grahame in her motion today but I think the government has been putting an entirely impossible position and the order in front of us today is an inevitable consequence of that thank you thank you thank you first of all can I thank Christine Grahame please don't ever stop given your impassioned speeches about the importance of passing good quality legislation I really value your contribution because you have given me some food for thought I'll say that I want to start by saying I mean as someone who has proudly supported devolution the devolution settlement and I fought for it I believe in it I do think there has been long periods of failures on intergovernmental activity and this one I am concerned that the Scottish government were not formally notified I think that's wrong I think it goes against the green of what I believe in as someone who supports the devolved settlement so that does give me cause for concern I've also got concerns as raised by Katie Clark as well just about the definition I do worry that the lack of a definition enshrined in the lead not only in the legislation but the as was the parameters of what's in excel bully dog and it's not I think we'll have to return to this question as I said and I openly you know I've got limited understanding of the issue only since it did appear in the news that has started to pay attention try to understand it but it does seem that there are there are problems with the breed in general which is why I asked a question about why we're not talking you know the beginning of the process the why breeders are breeding such large dogs which needs you know probably more exercise than most and need to be under more control than most and that as mentioned by others we've had some horrific examples and it won't be the only breed where there's been an issue about control and dangers to life but what concerns me when I look at it all is the fact we do have a loophole and as the minister said at the beginning the as I understand it the framework of the English legislation has banned taking dogs out of England and Wales it is an offence to bring a dog to Scotland but the only way in which it can be enforced is if there is a parallel legislation it was my understanding from the beginning which is why I did comment on it I would hope that although this committee are concerned with the justice issues to make sure that we've made and we start to make a you know we have to make a decision today we haven't long to think about it and that's the thing about SSIs generally even when they're controversial you do get limited time to deal with it but there are animal welfare issues there are issues raised by Elizabeth Impact on vets not for this committee but as an animal lover myself as a large dog as the GM Sheffard I am interested and concerned about these issues and I hope that ministers continue to have the relevant conversations with the Relate Committee around animal welfare issues for those reasons having to make a decision I don't want to abstain on something like this I'll be voting against the annulment but those are my reasons set out thank you very much indeed Katie Clark do you want to come in yes thank you I think the debate today has highlighted again the need for dangerous dogs legislation to be updated urgently I know the Scottish Government has done work on that and I hope that we do see a bill sooner rather than later because dog attacks in Scotland have risen by 80% in the last decade even in the last year and dog attacks and postal workers have increased by 15% and it's the attacks that have taken place recently some of the horrific attacks that will determine how I will vote today not because I think this particular statutory instrument is well drafted or the solution but I think it will address some of the problem and therefore I would feel that I would have no choice but to support it today for community safety reasons but I would hope that the points that Christine Grahame has so powerfully made in terms of the quality of the legislation that we pass are taken on board by the Scottish Parliament because it's a point that is repeatedly made in terms of the quality of the legislation from what I can understand from what the minister is saying the reason it's being defined in this way is simply to mirror the approach being taken down south I would question whether that is the right approach however this is the statutory instrument that we have in front of us today we cannot amend it if we reject it it will be some time before more proposals come back on on that basis I would feel that I would have to support the Scottish Government position today okay thank you very much indeed I wonder if I can just come in at this point and probably just reflect some or many of the comments that have been made by members I think we would rather not be here in this committee room having to go through this process today and like other members I commend Christine Grahame for her tenacity for her absolute commitment to animal welfare and I think the very articulate way and detailed way in which she has set out her position I do think like other members the Scottish Government has been putting in an extremely difficult situation and I think given the level of engagement that we know the Scottish Government has undertaken I do think that what we are dealing with today if there had been a different option then we would have probably been dealing with that I'd like to thank certainly Mr Wilson I think both Mr Wilson and the minister have set out in some detail what the issues that we are all facing and grappling with but I think importantly going forward in and around some of the monitoring and continued engagement which which is vitally important in this particular issue so like other members reluctantly I'll not be able to support the motion to annul this morning. Bob Doris I don't know if you want to come in at all or are you happy content to? I was keeping my head down Cunar I wasn't sure if I was permitted to come in at this stage because I'm not a member of the committee I think it would just be to reiterate some of the views that the committee members have done. First of all I commend the committee members on the interrogation of this statute when it's been really worth really worth it like exercising how scrutiny should take place and Christine Grahame won't thank me for what she would think is patronising it's not patronising I commend you in your endeavours very forensic endeavours in relation to this and if I was you I wouldn't be happy at the outcome of what's likely to be the vote here this morning but I said during my contribution and however we frame it this may make our communities a wee bit safer by passing the statute instrument it's not where I want to be it's not where the committee wants to be it's not where Parliament wants to be but not to act I think would be wrong and I think I said during my contribution that passing this legislation is better than not passing any legislation but the real task actually are the next statute instrument when I may not be so kind to my own government and the details in relation to that but also in relation to future work where I hope we have to see early sight of the government's thoughts in relation to future work in reform in this area and I thank you for allowing me to come in and make those points okay thank you very much can I invite the minister just to respond to any of the points that have been made yes thank you convener I just just to reiterate it's not an ideal situation for us to be in and this decision has not come lightly moving forward I hope we're never in this position again and I think for that to happen there has to be reform in legislation and I'm willing to work under my remit with dangerous dogs and hopefully with Mr Fairlie the new minister under animal welfare together on how we can make this necessary reform thank you minister can I now invite Christine Grahame to make any further brief final remarks and indicate whether you intend pressing or withdrawing your words well I'm not surprised that it's not being annulled I think it has been I know there's unhappiness around this table I think there's a breathing space before the next statute instrument which is the big bad one comes along maybe to put something else in its place I lay that only I know you've been under pressure with the the threat of dogs in brought up but there may be a pause where we can look at not proceeding to the second part I just lay that down without notice I thank members for their contributions as I say my passion is about legislation can I help it you can you take the lawyer out of me and Katie Clarkson the same boat it's bully McNeill you can't help yourself and I appreciate where the committee is but I think what's been put on the record today is extremely important and I hope that we can come back to the next statute of instrument maybe being able to do something else that's all I'll say thank you very much for your tolerance and I like being patronised can I can I just can I just ask if you're oh I'm pressing it of course I'm pressing it okay thank you okay so the question is that the criminal justice committee recommends that the motion to annul the dangerous dogs designated types Scotland order order of 2024 be agreed so are we agreed okay we are not agreed so we'll go to a vote so if I can ask for those in favour of annuling raise your hands thank you against annuling raise your hands and there'll be any abstentions just checking no abstentions thank you so thank you so there are no no votes in favour of annuling there are eight votes against annuling there are no abstentions and therefore the motion is not agreed okay so thank you very much indeed everyone we'll just have a short suspension just allow our witnesses to leave thank you okay thank you members our next item of business is consideration of a legislative consent memorandum for the investigatory powers amendment bill UK parliament legislation and I refer members to paper 2 so can I invite any of user comments from members including on whether the committee wishes to recommend to the Parliament that consent be given to the relevant provisions in the bill anyone got any particular comments to make Russell Finlay a very quick observation I'm by no means an expert on what the entirety of this is proposing but I do suggest that we support it there's one element that did catch my eye which is the creation of a new subsection which requires the investigatory powers commissioner to notify those who have been subject of inappropriate surveillance of such like by the authorities and I think that's pertinent given recent cases involving a case which I can't go into detail about in which journalists were subject and journalists align with their suspected sources were subject to inappropriate techniques by Police Scotland which relating to a serious crime so if this measure helps to tighten it up and put an onus on informing those who have been subjected to wrongful methods such as these then that can normally be a good thing so thank you thank you that's a helpful point any other points that members would like to make okay can I just confirm in that case that members are content to recommend to the Parliament that consent be given to the relevant provisions in the bill okay thank you okay thank you so that concludes the public part of today's meeting and we'll now move into private session thank you