The next item of business is a statement by Siobhian Brown on new safeguards in relation to XL bully dogs. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:58
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.
The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which time we will move on to the next item of business. Members who wish to ask a question should press their request-to-speak buttons.
I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement. For fans of Scottish National Party grievance output, this really is a belter. Adults and children across the UK have been maimed and killed by XL bullies. In response—and quite rightly—UK ministers moved quickly to protect the public, and banned the breeding, sale, exchange or gifting of these dangerous and powerful animals. But the SNP decided to reject the same measures. We know that seeking divergence from the UK is what gets these people out of bed in the morning, but putting petty nationalist point scoring above public safety surely marks a new low.
I note that 11 SNP MSPs have already stated their opposition to the ban. Will they now show some teeth, or will they retreat with their tails between their legs?
My colleague Jamie Greene and others warned that the SNP’s stupidity would result in an influx of XL bully dogs into Scotland, and that is exactly what is happening. For the minister to stand here today and try to blame others is pathetic. What an absolute brass neck. The people of Scotland are not daft. Can she tell them, while she and Humza Yousaf dithered, how many XL bullies have been brought into Scotland? Will she now take some responsibility for her inaction and apologise to anyone who suffers harm as a result?
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.]
Please resume your seat, minister. I am not having all the sedentary chuntering. Mr Lumsden, please do not interrupt the minister. If it was Mr Findlay, I am sorry. It was one of the two of you, anyway. Both of you are looking equally sheepish, if I may say so.
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 thank the minister for providing advance sight of her statement.
This has been another example of the inability of our two Governments to work together. We have seen the consequence of that lack of alignment and confusion in recent weeks, but now that the Government has proposed a ban in Scotland, I hope that the minister will work with the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and others to ensure that it is workable, and that it will give the police, vets and local authorities the resources that they will need to enforce it. I also hope that it will provide support for owners on low incomes, given the cost of exemptions at a time of a cost of living crisis.
Will the minister recognise that appalling dog attacks occur when irresponsible owners fail to keep their dogs—this applies to many breeds—under control, yet those owners often escape with nothing more than a rap on the knuckles from the court? It is five years since the Government promised to take action against irresponsible owners and breeders, so it is simply not good enough for the minister to say that she will work in the medium term to look at potential improvements to the utterly inadequate Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. Does she not accept that we need action now from the Government to provide councils, the police and the courts with stronger powers that make it clear that, ultimately, responsibility lies with irresponsible owners and breeders?
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.
A number of members seek to question the minister, so I would appreciate succinct questions, and answers to match.
I have been contacted by constituents who are responsible owners of well-trained and well-looked-after American XL bullies who are beloved family pets. They rightly point out that bullies are a breed, not a type, of dog. For decades, various dog breeds have been deemed dangerous when the problem was actually at the other end of the lead: “deeds, not breeds”, is a sensible approach. Can the minister outline whether the Scottish Government intends to keep the regulations under review and is she in a position to give an outline of any review process?
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.
Sadly, lives and limbs have been lost as a result of the most horrendous dog attacks. Data that I have uncovered shows that there have been 9,500 hospital admissions in Scotland since the flagship 2010 act.
Any action taken in Scotland should be proactive, not reluctant, as it may currently be. Nonetheless, I ask the minister this: given that five specific dog breeds account for more than half of the current dog control notices, how confident is she that the Government’s “deed, not breed” approach is actually leading to improved public safety, because the statistics seem to suggest otherwise?
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.
Since the announcement of the changes to legislation in relation to XL bullies in England, we have seen reports of people bringing XL bullies to Scotland, including examples of XL bully puppies being abandoned on the Scottish side of the border. Can the minister give an assurance that any legislation in Scotland will include the principles of animal welfare and that the Government is working with animal welfare organisations to ensure that any dogs that have been brought to Scotland are properly looked after and dealt with?
As I made clear in my statement, the decision has not been taken lightly, but the Scottish Government has been left with little choice. I am aware that there is a range of views about the new safeguards.
We are mindful of the possible impact that the change in the law may have on animal welfare organisations and will continue engaging with those organisations and with other key stakeholders to understand the impact of the regulations that will be introduced to provide safeguards around XL bullies.
The Scottish Government has stated on many occasions that animal welfare is a matter that we take very seriously. I am happy to assure the member that we will continue to work closely with local authorities and animal welfare stakeholders as the matter is progressed. I confirm that I am urgently planning to discuss the issues that stakeholders have raised in my discussions with Gillian Martin, the Minister for Energy and the Environment, who has animal welfare in her remit.
Dog attacks are a serious issue. I have a constituent, Evelyn Baginski, who petitioned this Parliament demanding action on dog-on-dog attacks. I have an old friend, Dave Sneller, who I had to drive to Crosshouse hospital when part of his finger was bitten off as we delivered election leaflets. Far from being an excuse for postponement, the lockdown meant a huge increase in dog ownership and so is the occasion for change. When will the Scottish Government stop being piecemeal, stop dragging its feet, turbocharge its working group that is reviewing the 2010 act, undertake an urgent review and come back to this Parliament with clear and comprehensive reforms, instead of being reactive, haphazard and sluggish?
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 UK Government, by not consulting the Scottish Government and making a desperate knee-jerk election-year promise, has demonised good responsible owners and is playing constitutional politics.
The DCN system is working well for all breeds in Perthshire. Can the minister say how many DCNs have been imposed in Perth? Also, if the UK Government’s legislation states that an XL bully dog cannot be given away, how could it claim—or did it claim—that giving a dog to a Scottish rescue centre or a new home in Scotland would not be an offence but that doing the same thing in England and Wales would be?
The member raises a very important point. It is a lack of certainty from the UK Government as to the effect of its legislation that has led to this decision. The UK Government is not certain that English and Welsh dog owners would be committing an offence in selling their XL bully dogs outside England and Wales. I think that the definition in the letter was that that was unlikely. That left the Scottish Government with little choice but to act to ensure that there is no undue risk to public safety in Scotland.
On dog control notices, I met the Perth and Kinross Council dog wardens team recently and I agree that they are doing a great job in using their powers. I think that they have 65 live dog control notices in place. However, we know that not all local authorities make such good use of their powers. I encourage all local authorities to seek to use their preventative powers to help to keep their communities safe, whatever the breed of dog. We will give more consideration to what we can do alongside local authorities to encourage more consistent deployment of their powers to help with dangerous dogs.
For clarity, I note that the statement that the Scottish Government refused to ban XL bully dogs in Scotland, which was in the press, was inaccurate. I wrote to the UK Government in November saying that we would not be following the same timescale as England and Wales.
Given the loss of life and serious injuries in other parts of the UK pertaining to this dog breed, it is right that we bring forward measures to address the issue, such as the safeguards that the minister announced today.
However, the case has underscored the pressing need to review our legislation that covers dangerous dogs in its entirety and how dog control regimes interact across our four nations. Although those provisions may provide necessary safeguards for dogs that are homed in domestic settings, I want to interrogate part of the minister’s exchange with Emma Harper. I seek some clarity from her on the XL bullies that are being looked after by organisations such as the Dogs Trust and the RSPCA. Could exemption certificates extend to dogs that are currently kennelled with animal welfare charities whose organisational values prohibit them from destroying a healthy animal, or will the law require those dogs to be euthanised, as they are in England?
On legislation, as I mentioned in my statement, the Scottish Government will look to work with key stakeholders and interested parties to 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.
On the point about puppies being taken in at the border for rehoming, we will look at the legislation but, at this time, we are looking to replicate what England and Wales are doing. It is my understanding that anybody who has an XL bully dog in Scotland at present will have to follow the safeguarding procedures that we will legislate for.
I advise members that four more members seek to ask a question. I hope to take all four, but I will need succinct questions and answers.
I am disappointed that we have to replicate the UK Government legislation, which has been widely criticised by animal welfare organisations and experts, such as the Scottish SPCA and Blue Cross, as being rushed through and having the potential to make the situation more dangerous, not safer. That said, this is not a criticism of the Scottish Government or the minister, who, I know, has worked her socks off to find solutions. Effectively, we have been backed into a corner due to the unfortunate influence of XL bullies from England, which is a result of the poorly drafted UK legislation.
Before the decision was made to replicate the UK legislation, what discussions and considerations were given to trying to find solutions—legislative or otherwise—to the issue of bullies being brought to Scotland?
As I said in my statement, the Scottish Government’s decision is not one that we have taken lightly; it reflects the specific circumstances that have arisen. We need to replicate the new safeguards that operate in England and Wales in order to reduce the undue impact on Scotland.
The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 is, of course, not focused on any one breed. Its approach is “deed, not breed”. Specific measures to target XL bully dogs take a different approach, which will, of course, run contrary to the overriding principles of the 2010 act.
We need to acknowledge that situations like this one might arise in the future, and we will want to ensure that legislation here in Scotland enables us to keep people safe and enables the effective control of dogs in certain circumstances.
After months of Scottish Conservative pressure, the SNP has decided to ban XL bully dogs in Scotland, despite the First Minister saying earlier this month that there was no need to do so, which contrasts rather with the confused attempts to suggest that the issue is one of timescale. How much taxpayer money has had to be spent—and how much will be spent, going forward—on things such as developing bespoke legislation and consulting with stakeholders, none of which would have been needed if the UK legislation had been adopted in the first place?
It is important that we engage with Scottish stakeholders, not override them by putting through legislation that comes up from down south. I have been doing so in recent weeks. As the member is aware, throughout the duration of the process—we must not call it “months”, as the process has been very short—the UK Government has been unable to give a definite statement on whether the new controls on selling or giving away XL bullies apply in Scotland. That is why our consideration has changed.
The Scottish Greens do not believe that banning ill-defined dog breeds is the best way to ensure either community safety or high animal welfare standards, so I welcome the minister’s assurance that the measures are not a ban. How will the approach in Scotland allow us to tackle the problems of rogue breeders and irresponsible owners, and will the minister agree to a summit with animal welfare organisations, vets and others to develop a coherent strategic approach on the issue?
The issue of animal welfare is not only important; it is emotive. The Scottish Government takes animal welfare very seriously and is committed to the highest possible welfare standards. We need to emphasise to people that they must be responsible owners and act responsibly when deciding to buy a dog or take one into their lives.
I have met a number of animal welfare organisations as well as representatives of the British Veterinary Association to discuss XL bully dogs, and I am happy to assure Maggie Chapman that engagement with them and with other relevant stakeholders will continue. For a considerable time, the Scottish Government has engaged with key animal welfare stakeholders, including the veterinary profession, on the issue of low-welfare dog breeding, and we will continue to work with stakeholders to address the issue through the pet trade task force, which is led by the Scottish SPCA.
On the issue of a summit, I will be happy to speak to my ministerial colleague Gillian Martin.
I remain convinced, as I have been from the start, that the proposed regulations are ill considered and unjust to decent owners. Demonising a breed is not the answer. The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which began as a member’s bill in my name, introduced the concept of a “deed, not breed” approach. I say to Russell Findlay that if he could just switch off the sensationalism for a moment he would see that only 2 per cent of issued dog control notices apply to XL bully-type breeds.
I am pleased to hear voices around the chamber seeking a review of and amendments to the 2010 act. I hope that those are done urgently. I hope, too, that the 2010 act is given the publicity that it deserves. The public are not aware of it, and neither are some professionals.
My final request is that we have a national dog microchipping database, because there are various databases at the moment. That way we could track both the dogs and any irresponsible owners.
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.
That concludes the statement. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business.
Air ais
Portfolio Question TimeAir adhart
Scottish Rural and Islands Youth Parliament