Chamber and committees

Yes. We have found ourselves in a position that we never wanted to be in, and that has been highlighted in what we have gone through over the past couple of months. The issue is very emotive, and I know that there are very polarised opinions on it. I have already reiterated that we do not want to be in this position. Moving forward, we really need to look at the legislation and at reform.

Mr Doris and I have discussed that at length. One of the unintended consequences was to do with what happened if somebody died. That was not covered in the legislation that came into force on 31 January in England and Wales; it came up later and we have been able to pick up on it and include it in our legislation.

As we go through the process, a few things have been highlighted, one of which is the issue that Mr Doris raises. My understanding is that, to legislate for that through the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, we would need primary legislation, not secondary legislation. Perhaps Jim Wilson could comment on that.

I think that there is a need for a reform of dog legislation so, yes, everything would be considered.

We can definitely look into it.

Ms Dowey raises a valid point. She will know that we have replicated what the UK Government implemented at the end of January. I do not think that there was any provision for, as such, vetting dog owners who apply for exemption certificates. I go back to the point that I keep reiterating: that demonstrates the need for a review of legislation relating to dogs, because there are some irresponsible dog owners who should not be dog owners.

There are none that I am aware of. Jim, has that happened in England and Wales?

Currently there are no such issues in Scotland, because, until 31 July 2024, XL bully owners who move to Scotland from England and Wales can continue to bring their dog with them and seek an exemption under the Scottish scheme. However, that will change. As the law stands—and if the SSI is not annulled—those owners will not be able to live in Scotland and legally own their XL bully dog from 1 August 2024, when the new safeguards will be fully in place in Scotland.

The position in England and Wales is different, because a safeguards regime has been fully in place since 1 February 2024. Since that date, a person from Scotland—or, indeed, any other country—has no longer been able to take their XL bully to England and Wales, and there is no ability down there to seek an exemption for their XL bully dogs.

Within that context, I wrote on 8 March to the UK Government Minister for Biosecurity, Animal Health and Welfare, Mr Douglas-Miller, to raise the issue of cross-border movement of XL bully dogs within the nation of the United Kingdom. To date, I have not received a response. However, in its engagement with DEFRA officials and representatives of devolved Administrations, the Scottish Government has previously raised the issue of the validity of the exemption certificates when an owner of an XL bully dog, who lives in Scotland, subsequently moves to England or Wales for work or any other reason.

I consider it important to ensure that law-abiding citizens who have complied with all the requirements to legally retain their dogs, as a consequence of the new safeguards that have come into place, are not unduly affected by the exemption regime rules when they wish to move to Scotland or Wales or vice versa. I am keen to work with the UK Government to look at collectively addressing the issue in a consistent and fair way and to avoid a situation where the owner would be required to dispose of their dog or would run the risk of being criminalised for possessing an XL bully dog without an exemption.

It is an on-going matter. When the legislation came in, it had unintended consequences, because it was not thought out, but we are raising the issue with the UK Government and I hope that it will be in contact with us in order to resolve it.

That is the intention of the legislation.

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.