Official Report 609KB pdf
Dangerous Dogs (Compensation and Exemption Schemes) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) (No 2) Order 2026
09:32
Item 2 is consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument that is subject to annulment. SSI 2026/212 amends the Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order 1991 and the Dangerous Dogs (Compensation and Exemption Schemes) (Scotland) Order 2024. In essence, the amendment order requires holders of exemption certificates to ensure that exempted dogs are not in close contact with children under the age of 12, unless they are supervised by a person aged 16 or over. The requirement applies in non-public spaces, including private homes. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the instrument on 8 September 2026 and made no recommendations in relation to it. No motion to annul has been lodged in relation to the instrument. Do members have any comments?
I have some questions that I hope we might address, including in relation to the age that is specified in the order. The language that is used is quite imprecise—it says “16 or over”, and, to be frank, I am not clear on the age at which the supervisory responsibilities would transfer to another person. I would also like to understand why it is 16 in Scotland and 18 in England. What does it mean to supervise—what constitutes supervision? What do the words “close contact” mean? Again, the language is so imprecise, and it is important to get it on the record what those terms mean. Therefore, at what age does responsibility transfer, what does it mean to supervise, what does “close contact” mean, and why the age difference between Scotland and England?
That is helpful, and, having looked at annex A of the committee’s papers, I had similar questions about the age, so I agree with you, Mr Kerr.
In addition to Mr Kerr’s comments, were different age thresholds considered as part of the child rights and wellbeing impact assessment, and why did the Government come to this decision? I read the impact assessment, but I need to understand how the decision was made in relation to children.
That is helpful, Ms Bland. Thank you.
Colleagues, as there are no further comments, if the committee is content to delegate authority to me, as convener, I propose to draft a letter to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety with a view to getting answers to those questions.
There was no formal consultation, but the Government’s policy note says that there was consultation with certain groups. However, it does not specify who was consulted, so can we ask the minister who was consulted?
Yes, that is no problem.
In that case, if the committee is content to delegate authority to me, I am happy to draft a letter to the minister to get answers on those points, with a view to bringing the instrument back to committee next week, so that we can take a formal decision on it. Are colleagues content to move ahead on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Next
Armed Forces Bill