Dangerous Dogs (Compensation and Exemption Schemes) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026
Welcome back. I hope that colleagues are refreshed.
Item 3 is a Scottish statutory instrument that is subject to annulment. Forgive me if I sound a little bit robotic—there is a form of words that I need to use while we are discussing legislation.
The effect of this negative instrument—the Dangerous Dogs (Compensation and Exemption Schemes) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026—is to remove the requirement for owners of exempted dangerous dogs to take out or renew third-party insurance from 1 July 2026. That is why we are using this unusual procedure—time is pressing. This follows the withdrawal of the only insurance provider and the lack of any alternatives. The instrument will ensure that owners of exempted dogs do not breach the conditions of their exemption certificates when existing policies expire.
The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the instrument at its meeting on 23 June and drew the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground (j) for breaching the 28-day rule. The committee was content with the explanation of the breach. It also had no procedural issues with the instrument.
No motion to annul has been lodged so far in relation to the instrument. We have had a very helpful note from our clerks and a note from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I invite members to comment.
I have not lodged a motion to annul the instrument, because the order that is before the committee seeks to make provision for a gap that would otherwise exist.
I want to make a comment and to declare an interest. Until recently, the Dogs Trust was the insurance provider. Its rehoming centre is based in the Broomhouse area of my constituency.
It is important that we, as Parliamentarians, place on record our thanks to the Dogs Trust and recognise that it stepped in to provide insurance on a short-term basis. That all came about as a result of the ban on XL bullies. However, clearly, the trust is not set up to do that. It has cost the trust an inordinate amount of money, and I know that it has raised a number of concerns.
The order simply makes provision for a gap that would otherwise exist, which is the result of market failure in the insurance industry.
One point that I want to place on record relates to quite a technical issue. The Dogs Trust freedom project allows survivors of domestic abuse, and those fleeing it, to place their dog in the care of the Dogs Trust. Currently, the legislation states that an exempted XL bully can be separated from its owner for only a 30-day window, but data from the freedom project shows that those dogs spend somewhere between six to nine months in care. I say that largely so that it is on the record for the Scottish Government to be mindful of, because the current situation is not working particularly well.
The order that is before the committee is appropriate—it fills a gap that would otherwise exist in legislation, so I support it.
Thanks, David. That is very helpful.
I understand that the statute will bring us in line with the rest of the United Kingdom, and I understand the imperative that lies behind it. None of us has lodged a motion to annul. However, I place on record my concern for those who currently own such dogs, because, without insurance, they will become fully liable for any costs that arise from the dogs, particularly in relation to third parties. I put on record my hope that the Scottish Government and the insurer will make it clear to the dogs’ owners that that is the reality, because, as was alluded to by the deputy convener, the Dogs Trust has borne a cost, and that cost will now be borne in full by the owners. It is important that I put on record that the owners need to be fully apprised of what will now be their full legal responsibility for their dog.
I strongly agree with that. It is not an interest that I need to declare at this point, but I was honorary vice-president of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. There will be significant implications for the Dogs Trust and the Scottish SPCA from the lack of insurance, because that will have implications for the owners and there will be knock-ons from that.
It is a very clear example of market failure, in that no other insurance company is willing to provide the insurance that is necessary. Therefore, the legislative instrument is necessary, and the Scottish Government has undertaken, in its letter to the Presiding Officer, to make people aware of the reality of the situation—as has the Dogs Trust, which has been the only insurance provider. There are significant implications for the owners, and we are fully apprised of that.
When it comes to the implications for victims, injuries from dangerous dogs could be horrific and life changing, and the situation is very concerning, as insurance could be not just invaluable but utterly necessary for people who have suffered injuries. Owners cannot be sued if they do not have money. The situation opens up many areas of concern. I acknowledge the potential risks—the real risks, actually—of the harm that these dogs can do, and the fact that victims are left exposed. That is really concerning.
That is a sensible point, albeit beyond the scope of the instrument: there is a wider policy implication about the reality that, if insurance is not available for the harm that these dogs might do, we need to revisit the conversation about whether they should be in society at all. That is a tricky conversation and is not for us today, but we should take good note.
As there are no other comments on the SSI, with those points taken, I undertake that we will keep an eye on it with our minister. We will hear from ministers over the recess and later on, but the wider issue is one that we will come back to. That being the case, I propose that we take no further action on the instrument. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes the public part of our meeting today. [Interruption.] I have to be a wee bit more robotic: I propose that the committee does not make any recommendations in relation to the negative instrument. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Lucy Miller for keeping me right. That concludes the public session of the committee, so we will move into private session to consider the evidence that we have heard and our future work plan.
11:24
Meeting continued in private until 11:57.
Previous
Scotland’s Prisons