Chamber and committees

I think that in the first evidence session on these SSIs I said that we are in a position that we never wanted to be in, and I do not want us ever to be in this position again with another breed. As we deal with the XL bully dog situation, I am considering what needs to be done through legislation so that we are not put in this position again. As we know, this is, for the Scottish Government, all about deed, not breed, and we are sticking to that. I know that we are diverging from that approach in this particular case, but that is something that we did not want to do. Moving forward, I do not want to be in a position in six months or a year’s time where there is an issue with another breed and we are having to do this again.

Absolutely. Even when we started those conversations with stakeholders back in October last year, it was already one of the main concerns that they highlighted to me in relation to moving forward with the definition. As you know, the phrase used in the press is “XL bully-type dog”, although the UK Government did put a definition of XL bully on its website, which is where people have to go for it. It sets out the height of the dog and the width of the body so that people can determine whether the dog is an XL bully; however, for the normal Joe Blow in the street, that sort of thing would be very difficult to know.

Jim Wilson might know more, but I did hear about a DNA test. I am not sure whether it is viable for every XL bully owner to do one.

I believe that it is up to the owners of dogs to be responsible.

Yes, we could look at that.

Good morning. I congratulate you on your new role, convener.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee about the draft Legal Aid (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024, which have been lodged to deliver changes to existing legal aid regulations, primarily to ensure continued access to justice in Scotland.

First, the regulations provide for children’s legal aid to be automatically available to the child in a children’s hearing system case in which a pre-hearing panel or the children’s hearing is considering the imposition of a compulsory supervision order that includes a movement restriction condition. The Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill seeks to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds will not be sent to young offenders institutions from 2024 onwards. In order to achieve that, it is likely that there will be an increased use of movement restriction conditions. Legal aid is currently automatically available for children if a pre-hearing panel or children’s hearing considers that it might be necessary to impose a compulsory supervision order that will include a secure accommodation authorisation. However, it is not available in cases in which the panel or hearing is considering a compulsory supervision order that includes a movement restriction condition.

Secondly, the regulations make provision to uplift the current counsel accommodation allowance. Existing regulations provide that counsel who must travel to appear in cases, such as when the High Court goes on circuit and sits outside the central belt, may claim accommodation and subsistence allowance. It has become apparent that, in a number of instances, the current allowance is insufficient to cover the costs of accommodation. The regulations raise the accommodation allowance and introduce a new provision to allow for it to be exceeded if certain conditions are met, including the condition that counsel has received the prior approval of the Scottish Legal Aid Board. That will allow the board the flexibility to approve hotel costs above the standard limit, albeit that it is predicted that that will be a very rare occurrence.

Finally, regulations introduce specific counsel fees for written submissions when they are required by the court. In particularly complex or technical cases, albeit rarely, the court has requested written submissions in preparation for a trial. Due to the nature of the submissions, the preparation that is involved can take several hours or, in some cases, days. Currently, there is no separate fee for that work; it is simply subsumed into the preliminary hearing preparation fee. The regulations will amend the fee table to provide fees for junior and senior counsel to be payable for criminal cases in which a written submission has been requested by the court.

That gives you a brief overview of the regulations and their context, and I am happy to answer any questions.

My understanding is that it will be automatic, but I will bring one of my officials in on that.

It should be automatic. Any child who is going through the process will be entitled to legal aid.

Good morning, convener and committee. 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 XL bully dogs.

The vast majority of dog owners are responsible animal lovers and know that owning a dog brings with it important responsibilities. Although a dog attack remains a rare occurrence, when one occurs, it 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.

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 is one that we did not make lightly. We wanted to ensure that we took an evidence-based approach after engagement with relevant stakeholders, which I carried out following the United Kingdom Government’s announcement of its legislation.

After that legislation came into force, it became clear that the UK Government could not confirm that an owner of an XL bully dog who lived in England or Wales and was not able to sell or rehome a dog there could not do so in Scotland. Although to rehome such a dog would breach English and Welsh law, the legislation created a loophole that led to some owners bringing dogs to Scotland. Therefore, we moved to take action immediately by introducing the new order.

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. You have the first legislation before you today. Its effect is that, from 23 February, which is this Friday, selling, gifting and exchanging an XL bully dog will be prohibited and the loophole will be removed. It will remain legal for current owners of XL bully dogs to own such a dog. Owners will have to ensure that their dogs are 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 for owners to apply and pay for an exemption by 31 July. That will allow them 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 will meet regularly over the next few months.

I am happy to take any questions that the committee may have.

I will make one point regarding that. I think that the letter from Michael Gove was addressed to the Deputy First Minister. I was copied into it, and it was sent on 13 November. The timescale from September to 31 December was a very short period of time to get legislation in place.

I will bring in Jim Wilson, who has been involved in the discussions with the UK Government from the beginning, because the devolved Administrations have been having discussions with it.