Chamber and committees

For clarity, Mr Findlay says that we dithered and delayed and refused to follow the ban down south in England and Wales, but that is inaccurate. I wrote to the UK Government after I had my first letter in mid-November, saying that we would not be following the same timescale. We have in place dog control notices, which require dangerous dogs to be kept on a lead and muzzled. That measure was to be implemented in England and Wales on 31 December, but we already had that in place.

Over the past few weeks, I have engaged with stakeholders. [Interruption.] When I wrote to the UK Government minister, I asked about the legalities of dog owners—[Interruption.]

As I have done in the past several weeks, I will most definitely work with all stakeholders as we create the legislation to replicate the position in England and Wales.

In relation to the 2019 report that called on the Scottish Government to take action, action has been taken since that report in 2019. In 2021, the Scottish Government delivered a digital social media campaign to promote the importance of responsible dog ownership, and it has since rerun the elements of the campaign on several occasions.

In addition, in 2022, we implemented the dog control notices scheme across all local authorities. Currently, there are more than 1,200 dogs on the database. The figures for that are released on a weekly basis.

As I said in my statement, we are committed to reviewing the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. In relation to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, back in 2022, the Scottish Government led a working group made up of stakeholders, including Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Royal Mail, the Communication Workers Union, the Scottish Community Safety Network and the Scottish SPCA, to assist us in taking forward our commitment to review the 1991 act.

The working group has undertaken that review and we are now considering the wide range of views offered to determine what next steps may be appropriate.

On the member’s assumption that we are being “reactive”, I have to be honest that we had to be reactive in this particular situation. It was announced only on 31 October that the first stage was going to be implemented in England and Wales. That is why we did not follow the eight-week timescale that was followed in England and Wales. We have taken our time to speak to stakeholders.

We are not dragging our heels. As I said, we have reviewed the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and we will determine the appropriate next steps. As I said in my statement, we will look at potential improvements to the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 that could enhance and strengthen the general preventative dog control notices in Scotland.

The member raises an important question. I will be clear, as the First Minister was at First Minister’s questions earlier, that the introduction of safeguards does not mean that the Scottish Government is moving away from the “deed, not breed” approach that is recognised by dog control experts as being the most effective way of keeping communities safe.

The dog control approach in Scotland, as set out in the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, has been, and remains, focused on the actions of dog owners in order to maximise responsible dog ownership. I agree that it is owners who hold the key to keeping communities safe from out-of-control and dangerous dogs. However, given the specific situation arising from the actions of the UK Government, the Scottish Government has been left with little choice in making its decision.

In the medium term, we are committed to making a further assessment of how the local authority enforcement powers set out in the 2010 act can be improved so that communities can be better protected from out-of-control dogs. I will engage with all those who have an interest, including the member.

I thank Christine Grahame not only for her question but for introducing her member’s bill, which became the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. I have met her in recent days and am more than happy to consider any suggestions that she might have for strengthening the legislation.

I will begin by explaining the reason for the Scottish Government’s policy decision to introduce new safeguards in relation to XL bully dogs. The new safeguards, which will include a requirement for XL bully dogs to be muzzled and kept on a lead in public places, will help to ensure public safety.

That decision was not taken lightly. It follows as a direct result of the United Kingdom Government’s decision to introduce new controls on the XL bully dog for owners living in England and Wales. Such a decision was for the UK Government to make for owners in England and Wales, but the UK Government failed to fully consider the knock-on impacts of that decision. As the First Minister set out last week, the UK Government failed to act to stop dog owners in England and Wales from evading the new controls by bringing their dogs to Scotland. That changed the balance of whether we needed to act in Scotland.

These are exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves. They mean that it is now right and proper that we replicate the controls that are being implemented south of the border. That does not mean that the Scottish Government is moving away from the “deed, not breed” approach, which is recognised by dog control experts as the most effective way of keeping communities safe.

The Scottish Parliament should be proud of the legislation that has created a system of dog control notices that can be served on an owner of any dog that is out of control as a proportionate step to reduce the risk of the dog becoming dangerously out of control.

Scotland is in a unique position in comparison with the rest of the UK. The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 enables local authorities to serve dog control notices to deal with out-of-control dogs at an early stage. I can confirm that the Scottish Government will be looking in the medium term to work with key stakeholders and interested parties to look at potential improvements to the 2010 act that could enhance and strengthen the general preventative dog control notice regime in Scotland.

We recognise that the vast majority of dog owners are responsible animal lovers who will want to keep their XL bully dogs and comply with the safeguards when they are introduced. Responsible dog ownership is hugely important but, sadly, there are some cases of irresponsible dog ownership that can, understandably, lead to operational challenges for the police as well as local authority dog wardens.

Issues could also arise with dogs being neglected or not exercised, or with dogs generally not being compatible with the owner’s lifestyle, leading to behavioural issues. Although the focus today is on XL bully dogs, any dog has the propensity to become out of control or even dangerous if not trained and socialised properly and not kept under proper control at all times in all places.

Last month, when I met someone who has lived experience of having been attacked by a dog, I was struck by their courage. The individual spoke bravely when telling their story of how they had suffered a dog bite attack that resulted in severe physical, emotional and financial consequences.

I am aware that there is a range of views on the decision that has been made, but I place on record my thanks to all those whom I have met in recent weeks for their helpful engagement, input, expertise and time.

I must stress that, just as is the case in England and Wales, these are new safeguards rather than a ban, and it is important that people understand the effect of the new safeguards. In England and Wales, there are thousands of applications from XL bully owners who have sought exemption certificates to enable them to keep their XL bully dogs. It would therefore be wrong to categorise the safeguards, whether in Scotland or in England and Wales, as a ban.

In recent weeks, I have heard many concerned voices around the impact of this policy. We will, of course, continue to engage with stakeholders to hear about the practical issues arising, and we will carefully consider those for Scotland. From my discussions to date, I am aware of concerns relating to veterinary capacity, given the uncertainty around the number of XL bully dog owners who will require vet assistance. I am also conscious of the possible impact on animal welfare organisations and of wider issues connected to the designation of dogs under the dangerous dogs legislation, both in terms of the impact of some of the safeguards and the wider implications. Those issues will continue to require serious consideration, and I am happy to discuss them as we implement the safeguards in Scotland.

It is important that members, XL bully dog owners and the general public understand what the new safeguards will mean. Subject to approval by Parliament, the effect of the new Scottish controls will be that owners will need to make a decision about whether to keep their dogs.

There will be two stages to the new safeguards regime. From a date that we will announce, the first stage will mean that it is an offence in Scotland to sell an XL bully dog; abandon an XL bully dog or let it stray; give away an XL bully dog; breed from an XL bully dog; or have an XL bully in public without a lead and muzzle.

The second stage will be the deadline to apply for a dog to be added to the exemption index. After that date—which, again, will be announced in the coming period—it will be an offence for a person to own an XL bully dog unless they either have an exemption certificate or have applied for a certificate.

That two-stage approach will give a limited amount of time for XL bully owners to make an informed decision about what they want to do with their dogs. It is appropriate to give that opportunity. However, once the new regime is in place, the owner will need to decide either to keep their dog and, if so, to adhere to the new safeguards, or to no longer keep their dog.

For those who wish to keep their dog and comply with the new safeguards, a fee will be payable to apply to register a dog on the exemption index. Compensation will be payable for those owners who no longer wish to keep their dogs. The amount of the fee, and the compensation payable, will be set out in regulations and confirmed in the coming period. For reference, the equivalent amounts in England and Wales are £92.40 to register a dog on the exemption index, and either £100 or £200 for the loss of a dog that is subject to euthanisation and payment for the process of euthanising a dog, depending on whether that service was paid for.

In addition to the need for a muzzle and to keep the dog on a lead, the new safeguards operating as part of an exemption include having the dog microchipped and neutered. The specific dates for those stages will be set out in the legislation to be laid and agreed in Parliament, but we are working at pace to urgently develop necessary regulations.

Dog owners in Scotland should therefore start to consider what they may wish to do with their XL bully dogs. Given what the Scottish Government has announced, I suggest that it would be sensible for any prospective owners of XL bully dogs to seriously bear in mind the need to adhere to the new safeguards, if they are minded to acquire an XL bully dog where they currently do not own one. We will develop guidance and practical support to allow owners to understand the legislation and what is required. That will include details on how to identify an XL bully dog using the standard developed by the UK Government.

We must recognise the consequences for Scotland of the UK Government’s policy on XL bully dogs. In effect, it would see owners in England and Wales able to get rid of their XL bully dogs here in Scotland. We therefore have to act and enhance safeguards that will help to keep the public safe. It is therefore right to replicate the regime in England and Wales so that we remove the ability of English and Welsh dog owners to use Scotland to get rid of their dogs.

Moving forward, we will be considering issues that have arisen as a consequence of the UK Government’s policy. We will also continue to work closely with stakeholders to look at mitigating, where appropriate, the impact of any unintended consequences of these controls.

Despite the need to introduce these new safeguards, we remain committed to the fundamental principles of the Scottish approach. The situation with XL bully dogs is unique, but we remain unequivocally committed to the “deed, not breed” approach.

It is important to reiterate and to understand the reason why the Scottish Government has been left with little choice in making this decision. The Scottish Government was engaging with dog control key interests in Scotland in order to assess the principle of introducing new safeguards in relation to XL bully dogs, but that was based on the position in Scotland being unaffected by the introduction in England and Wales of the new safeguards in relation to XL bully dogs. Now that the UK Government has been unable to provide a definite statement on whether the new controls on selling XL bully dogs apply to dog owners living in England and Wales who seek to sell their dogs outside England and Wales, that has changed our consideration.

I get dog control notices from local authorities each week. Those deal with more than 1,200 dogs but there is not one distinct breed. There are some crossbreeds, but I know that the XL bully is not among the top 10 of those, so I do not agree with Jamie Greene regarding the data.

I reiterate that I have been engaging extensively with stakeholders since the announcement. It is important for the member to understand why the Scottish Government has been left with little choice about its decision. As the member will be aware, the UK Government has been unable to provide a definite statement on whether the new controls on selling or giving away XL bullies apply to those who seek to give them away in Scotland. That has significantly changed our consideration in recent weeks.

Our current legal aid funding arrangement ensures that around 70 per cent of people are eligible for a form of civil legal aid in Scotland. Means testing remains an important lever to ensure that we retain the wide scope of cases for which legal aid is available in principle. We have invested significant funding in front-line services, and we work closely with statutory agencies to improve their response to victims and survivors. We also provide support to the Scottish Women’s Rights Centre.

A non-harassment order can be made in certain circumstances by a criminal court or civil court. The criminal or civil court can make a non-harassment order that runs for an indefinite period of time if it considers that to be appropriate. A person can apply for an exclusion order from a civil court to exclude from the family home their spouse or civil partner or, in certain circumstances, their cohabiting partner. Those orders end automatically in certain circumstances, such as when a couple divorce. Anyone who remains at risk of abuse or harassment after an exclusion order or a non-harassment order ends could apply to the civil court for a further non-harassment order or an interdict.