Chamber and committees

I have a final question. It is clear that there has been on-going dialogue with DEFRA about wider reform in relation to dog control in Scotland and also about a potential pan-UK approach to that. Have representatives of large dog breed owners been engaged in any of those discussions? When I and Mr MacGregor met Bedlay Gardens, the minister and Mr Wilson, Bedlay Gardens was really up for reform of the system in Scotland. It really wants to engage and be challenged, and it wants to innovate and transform the system in Scotland. Its expertise is surely crucial in taking forward some much-needed reforms.

Good morning, minister and Mr Wilson.

I will support the Government’s moves, although not with any great enthusiasm, based on a precautionary approach to legislation. A number of constituents have contacted me to make representations—not only XL bully dog owners but concerned members of the public, so I have seen both sides of the debate.

It is clear that dog and animal welfare groups and expert groups all withdrew from the DEFRA working group that was pursuing a ban in England, due to concerns over the poor quality and rushed nature of the legislation from the UK Government. The UK legislation is clearly far from perfect—in fact, to call it “imperfect” would be a compliment. The Scottish legislation will, therefore, have very similar issues.

It might be that weak legislation is better than no legislation, based on the precautionary principle that I mentioned. However, I have a constituent who has two XL bully-type dogs. They are a responsible owner, I am sure, and through no fault of their own they have to move home. That owner will face a situation in which they will struggle, not because they have an XL bully type dog, but because social landlords do not like taking dogs into tenancies, and nor do some private landlords. Therefore, they might face an invidious choice somewhere down the line as to whether to euthanise their two dogs in order to prioritise a home.

My understanding is that the statutory instrument does not provide an exemption for my constituent, which is concerning. However, there is a further statutory instrument coming down the line, in which exemptions will be looked at again. Is that aspect something that the Scottish Government can and will look at?

I want to push you a bit more, minister, on where flexibility and discretion could be used and whether that could be described as a loophole, because those are two different things. If we define legislation tightly and do it well, it is not a loophole—-it is providing appropriate flexibility and discretion.

For example, if somebody has a private tenancy in Scotland—I am talking about Scotland-based examples—and the landlord wishes to take possession of that home to stay in it themselves, and the tenant becomes homeless through no fault of their own, that is all clearly evidence based. That would not be a loophole; a very clear element of flexibility could be shown in that regard.

I know that we cannot legislate for individual cases, but we should at least be looking to legislate along different themes. I do not think that, if we legislated for housing situations that would arise in England, that would in any way create a loophole for people bringing dogs from England to Scotland. I do not understand that.

I want to know a little bit more about how the Government will work with representatives of owners of large dog breeds, such as the experts at Bedlay Gardens, which Mr Wilson mentioned. It was mentioned that the implementation group includes COSLA, Police Scotland, the National Dog Warden Association and others, but I am not sure that representatives of large dog breed owners were mentioned. I think that, rather than just engaging with them, having them at the table would be a worthwhile endeavour. What does the minister think about that?

I was keeping my head down, convener. I was not sure whether I was permitted to comment at this stage, as I am not a member of the committee.

I want to reiterate some of the views that committee members have expressed. First, I commend committee members on their interrogation of the statutory instrument—it has been a worthwhile exercise and is how scrutiny should take place. Christine Grahame will not thank me for this, because she will think that it is patronising—although it is not—but I commend her on her forensic endeavours in relation to the issue. If I was her, I would not be happy with the likely outcome of the vote this morning.

In my contribution earlier, I said that, however we frame it, passing the statutory instrument may make our communities a wee bit safer. It is not where I want to be or where the committee or Parliament want to be, but not to act would be wrong. As I said, passing this legislation is better than not passing any legislation. However, the real task relates to the next statutory instrument—when I may not be so kind to my Government—and to the details in relation to that, as well as to further work. We must have early sight of the Government’s thoughts on future work and reform in the area.

Thank you for allowing me to make those points, convener.

I will direct the first part of my question to Jim McBride, but I appreciate that Nicky Brown might also want to come in, given his opening statement.

Before Christmas, I had a briefing from Glasgow City Council on the housing emergency that has been declared, specifically about the streamlining of the asylum process in the city. I also had a briefing from Mears at that time. I was told that roughly 580 to 600 households that had had a positive decision from the UK asylum process had overstayed in their Mears tenancy and were imminently going to be pushed into the Glasgow homelessness system, with many hundreds—perhaps thousands—to follow. Could Mr McBride tell us where we are now and the pressures that that has put on the system in Glasgow?

I will not come back in, convener, but Nicky Brown might want to put some comments on the record.

To follow on from Mr McBride’s comments about the acquisition programme, I know from my casework that Maryhill Housing Association is very active in tracking potential properties in the private sector and making direct efforts to get homeless families housed in those properties. It would be helpful for the committee to write to Glasgow City Council to find out how that is mapped out across the city and what the numbers are looking like per housing association, particularly—funnily enough—in the Maryhill and Springburn constituency. That would be helpful. I have put that in now, Mr McBride.

I want to ask a budgetary question. We know that the Scottish Government is still committed to delivering 110,000 new affordable homes by 2031 and £3.5 billion of investment over the course of the current parliamentary session. I know that there is a separate debate about whether that amount was sufficient, but that comes down to politicians who have to set budgets.

We note that the Scottish Government’s capital budget has been slashed by the UK Government, but the Scottish Government has also cut its own affordable housing supply budget. I will not get drawn into the politics of that, but what is the short-term impact of that on homelessness? If the same money is spent over the course of the parliamentary session, will that have a longer-term impact? There will be a short-term impact, but will there also be a longer-term impact if the same amount of money is spent over the course of the parliamentary session?

I suppose that it would make sense to direct that question to Gavin Smith, who can offer an ALACHO perspective.

That is very helpful.

I may not have got the memo about that, convener. I thought that I was asking question 13, on discretionary housing payments, but I think Mr Mason asked most of the questions on that theme. The only follow-up that I have is on the £90 million that the Scottish Government anticipates spending on discretionary housing payments in the coming year to mop up the mess of the UK Government’s bedroom tax. That is a lot of money in the system. Is there a more effective way of using that? In budgetary terms, it is quite a significant figure. Are there ways that we could use that money more effectively?

It is for Mr MacRae, only because he is in the room and he made eye contact. I am not sure who would be the best person to answer that question.