Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Jim Wilson might know more, but I did hear about a DNA test. I am not sure whether it is viable for every XL bully owner to do one.

I believe that it is up to the owners of dogs to be responsible.

Yes, we could look at that.

Good morning. I congratulate you on your new role, convener.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee about the draft Legal Aid (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024, which have been lodged to deliver changes to existing legal aid regulations, primarily to ensure continued access to justice in Scotland.

First, the regulations provide for children’s legal aid to be automatically available to the child in a children’s hearing system case in which a pre-hearing panel or the children’s hearing is considering the imposition of a compulsory supervision order that includes a movement restriction condition. The Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill seeks to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds will not be sent to young offenders institutions from 2024 onwards. In order to achieve that, it is likely that there will be an increased use of movement restriction conditions. Legal aid is currently automatically available for children if a pre-hearing panel or children’s hearing considers that it might be necessary to impose a compulsory supervision order that will include a secure accommodation authorisation. However, it is not available in cases in which the panel or hearing is considering a compulsory supervision order that includes a movement restriction condition.

Secondly, the regulations make provision to uplift the current counsel accommodation allowance. Existing regulations provide that counsel who must travel to appear in cases, such as when the High Court goes on circuit and sits outside the central belt, may claim accommodation and subsistence allowance. It has become apparent that, in a number of instances, the current allowance is insufficient to cover the costs of accommodation. The regulations raise the accommodation allowance and introduce a new provision to allow for it to be exceeded if certain conditions are met, including the condition that counsel has received the prior approval of the Scottish Legal Aid Board. That will allow the board the flexibility to approve hotel costs above the standard limit, albeit that it is predicted that that will be a very rare occurrence.

Finally, regulations introduce specific counsel fees for written submissions when they are required by the court. In particularly complex or technical cases, albeit rarely, the court has requested written submissions in preparation for a trial. Due to the nature of the submissions, the preparation that is involved can take several hours or, in some cases, days. Currently, there is no separate fee for that work; it is simply subsumed into the preliminary hearing preparation fee. The regulations will amend the fee table to provide fees for junior and senior counsel to be payable for criminal cases in which a written submission has been requested by the court.

That gives you a brief overview of the regulations and their context, and I am happy to answer any questions.

My understanding is that it will be automatic, but I will bring one of my officials in on that.