Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome the opportunity to give evidence to the committee on this secondary legislation.

As members are aware, the Scottish Government is taking a two-stage approach to new safeguards in relation to XL bully dogs. The order that the committee is considering today is the second of two separate pieces of secondary legislation on XL bullies.

Members will recall that I appeared before the committee on 21 February to give evidence on the first piece of secondary legislation, the Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (Scotland) Order 2024. The first stage of the new rules, as set out in that order, came into force on 23 February 2024. XL bully owners must now ensure that their dogs are muzzled and on a lead when in a public place; moreover, the breeding, selling, gifting or exchanging of XL bully dogs is now prohibited. I stress, however, that it remains entirely legal to own an XL bully dog.

The order that we are discussing today establishes the exemption process for owners and rehoming centres wishing to keep dogs and to adhere to the new safeguards beyond 31 July 2024. The order also provides for a compensation scheme for those XL bully owners who, unfortunately, decide not to keep their dogs. In addition, the order ensures that the historic process of tattooing is not required as a means of identifying dogs for which an exemption is sought.

Owners of XL bully type dogs will have from 1 April 2024 to 31 July 2024 to seek a Scottish Government exemption for their dogs. From 1 August 2024, it will be an offence to own a XL bully dog without having, or having applied for, an exemption. Let me be clear: any responsible XL bully owner who wishes to keep their dog can do so, but they must seek an exemption and agree to adhere to the exemption conditions.

As we approach the go-live date of 1 April for the exemption and compensation schemes, I can advise that full details will be published on the Scottish Government and mygov.scot websites on the first day on which applications can be submitted. We will not publish details before then to avoid early applications being made when they would be invalid.

We understand dog owners’ concerns about the possible impact of the new controls. I assure the committee that the Scottish Government takes animal welfare seriously and is committed to the highest possible welfare standards. My officials consulted with various stakeholders, including welfare organisations, throughout the development of the new safeguards that are part of signing up to an exemption.

I have also committed to regular monthly engagement with the dog control coalition, whose members include the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Dogs Trust and the British Veterinary Association, to ensure that everything is being done to implement the new safeguards in the best way possible. My officials also meet weekly with the dog control coalition and fortnightly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Police Scotland and local authorities through the Scottish Government-led implementation forum.

I am happy to answer any questions that members might have.

The Scottish Government will run the exemption scheme. We are in close contact with Police Scotland, local authorities and COSLA—they are considering the potential costs and will get back to us. It is the Scottish Government, not Police Scotland, that will run the scheme.

The British Veterinary Association is a member of the dog control coalition, which I have met regularly since last October. When we meet, we listen to its concerns. Concerns about capacity or a breaking point have not been raised specifically, but several other issues have been raised with us, and as we move forward, we will work with the coalition and through the implementation group, too.

Yes, of course.

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.

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