Seòmar agus comataidhean

I mentioned earlier the unintended consequences of this legislation, such as the issue if someone dies. These things are being considered and, as Jim Wilson outlined, we will consider them. We have the implementation group, and it could be very worthy of consideration to include the group that you mention. I do not know whether Jim wants to give his view on that.

Just to give a little clarity, in the past couple of weeks—I am not sure whether the situation was the consequence of somebody dying and XL bullies having to be rehomed—the SSPCA was trying to rehome four XL bullies before Friday, because it will have to adhere to the legislation on rehoming that comes into force then.

It was not that I specifically chose not to meet them. I was being updated every week and, when I found out that the legislation was going to be put in place in England and Wales, I had no detail about it at that stage. I said to Jim Wilson that I wanted to meet all stakeholders to get their view on what was happening in England and Wales. I have lived, breathed and dreamed XL bully dogs since last November. It is not that I did want to meet the UK Government; I was watching exactly what was happening as the measures were implemented down south.

No, we do not. As I have said, when the UK legislation was announced on 31 October 2023—and I was formally told about it in mid-November—I was confident that, through the dog control notices that we have in place in local authorities, we would have the same safeguards in place for 31 December that England and Wales had in place. Even when I was engaging with stakeholders down south, they were wishing that they had DCNs in place in England and Wales, as Scotland does. I felt confident with that.

Serious consideration was given to the issue during the Christmas period. We do not have any stats on exactly how many XL bullies were brought up, but we saw material on social media relating to community safety issues. There was also an animal welfare issue, as it would cause anxiety for dogs to be brought up in vans and taken into new households, with no history and not knowing where they were going. We took the considered option to move forward, primarily for community safety but also for the welfare of the XL bully dogs.

No—it is all just on social media, and it is very hard to collect data from social media. Jim Wilson might have something to add.

Yes. I do not agree with Mr Findlay’s perception of how things have come about, but I agree that community safety is paramount. However, we find ourselves with rushed legislation.

In an ideal world, the UK Government would have got in touch with the Scottish Government to say, “Look—these are our proposals; let’s work together”, and it would have done the same with Wales and Northern Ireland too, but that is not the way that it happened.

We had no detail in mid-September. Even the UK Government did not have the detail then.

I thank Miss Wells for her answer—sorry, her question.

Certain stakeholders, such as the Competition and Markets Authority, support the removal of a minimum ownership requirement entirely, while other stakeholders, including some legal firms, favour retaining the current rule of 51 per cent ownership by regulated professionals, so there was a divergence of views. In the response to the Scottish Government consultation, just over half—52 per cent—of respondents agreed that the 51 per cent majority stake rule for licensed legal services should be removed, compared with 48 per cent who disagreed. Some stakeholders have shifted their view on the issue slightly since the Scottish Government consultation, but our approach in the bill is to seek to strike a balance between the two views.

I will bring in my officials, as they have that history.

Yes, convener. The first section that has been highlighted with regard to ministerial powers is section 5, which allows for the regulatory objectives and professional principles to be amended to update them to reflect regulatory best practice. It was included in the bill in response to calls from stakeholders for a permissive and enabling framework of primary legislation that would be flexible enough to respond to future changes in the legal services market by allowing future amendments through secondary legislation. The Scottish Government will, however, accept the recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that the bill be amended to remove section 5, and we will lodge an amendment to that effect at stage 2.

The next section is section 8, on the creation of a category system for regulators. It seeks to create an inherent requirement for flexibility to respond to any changes or proposed changes to how a regulator operates or in its membership numbers, and it is intended to future proof the regulatory framework. The Scottish Government acknowledges that the DPLR Committee has recommended that the bill be amended to remove section 8 from the bill. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of section 8(5) are necessary to ensure that the bill accurately reflects any changes to the regulatory framework in respect of new accredited regulators receiving approval, any regulator ceasing to operate or a change in a regulator’s name, as recently evidenced with the name change of the Association of Construction Attorneys.

We will—