Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

Convener, if I may, I will come back to Mr MacGregor. This was never a constitutional issue—our concern was about good legislation. As you know, the legislation was announced with no consultation with the Scottish Government and with no background to it, so it has been accelerated to where we are today.

One thing that I would like to say to Mr MacGregor is that, initially, the UK Government estimated that there would be 10,000 dogs on the list. At present, the number is nearly 61,000. Out of those 61,000, only 200 owners have chosen not to keep their dogs. Therefore, the majority of dog owners are responsible dog owners, and I am confident and hopeful that that will happen in Scotland as well.

I just have not. It has not been on the agenda. I have been meeting stakeholders.

If I may, I will go through the timescale, because it is important that we are clear on how all of this happened.

On 15 September, the UK Government publicly announced that it was going to bring in an XL bully ban in England and Wales. There was no consultation with the Scottish Government. On 15 September, the Prime Minister announced that he had ordered the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to undertake the work to define and ban XL bully dogs in England and Wales, because the XL bully dog breed was not recognised by the main British dog associations or by the Kennel Club. DEFRA convened an expert group to specify a legal definition of the XL bully for the purpose of the ban in England and Wales, and that group met for the first time on 21 September 2023. Therefore, the regulations, legislation and detail for the ban were not available in early September, because the detail was just being planned as of 21 September.

On 29 September, I received a letter from the UK Government to advise that it would be putting in a ban in England and Wales, but it gave no timescale or detail.

On 2 October, the dog control coalition organisations—the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Veterinary Association, the Kennel Club, Blue Cross, Dogs Trust and Battersea—all withdrew from the Prime Minister’s DEFRA group, due to concerns over the rushed legislation.

On 31 October, the UK Government publicly announced the timescale that, by 31 December, people would not be able to give away XL bully dogs and that the dogs would have to be muzzled and on a lead. That was an eight-week period.

On 9 November, I sent a letter to the UK Government to say that we would not be following the same legislation and timescale. I did not say that we would not be following it at all; the concern was about the timescale because, at that stage, we would have had six weeks to get things in place by 31 December.

I had asked the UK Government about the potential loopholes in the legislation and the consequences for Scotland. On 14 December, I finally received a very vague answer from the UK Government. At that stage, we decided to bring in the legislation at pace after Christmas.