Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Good morning, convener and committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the committee with information on the safeguards that the Scottish Government is putting in place in relation to XL bully dogs.

The vast majority of dog owners are responsible animal lovers and know that owning a dog brings with it important responsibilities. Although a dog attack remains a rare occurrence, when one occurs, it can have devastating consequences. Such incidents illustrate the importance of responsible dog ownership and effective enforcement by Police Scotland and local authorities of relevant dog control laws.

We have public safety always in mind. As I made clear in my statement to Parliament last month, the decision to introduce the initial new safeguards on XL bully dogs is one that we did not make lightly. We wanted to ensure that we took an evidence-based approach after engagement with relevant stakeholders, which I carried out following the United Kingdom Government’s announcement of its legislation.

After that legislation came into force, it became clear that the UK Government could not confirm that an owner of an XL bully dog who lived in England or Wales and was not able to sell or rehome a dog there could not do so in Scotland. Although to rehome such a dog would breach English and Welsh law, the legislation created a loophole that led to some owners bringing dogs to Scotland. Therefore, we moved to take action immediately by introducing the new order.

I am determined that we promote and support responsible ownership, animal welfare and public safety as effectively as possible. Our approach is in two parts. You have the first legislation before you today. Its effect is that, from 23 February, which is this Friday, selling, gifting and exchanging an XL bully dog will be prohibited and the loophole will be removed. It will remain legal for current owners of XL bully dogs to own such a dog. Owners will have to ensure that their dogs are muzzled and on a lead when in a public place.

Our second phase will be to make it an offence to own an XL bully dog without an exemption from 1 August. Further secondary legislation will shortly be laid that will provide for the detail of the system for owners to apply and pay for an exemption by 31 July. That will allow them to make plans and prepare for the new safeguards.

We will continue to engage with a wide range of stakeholders as we prepare for the implementation of the new safeguards. A new stakeholder forum has therefore been established, which will meet regularly over the next few months.

I am happy to take any questions that the committee may have.

I will make one point regarding that. I think that the letter from Michael Gove was addressed to the Deputy First Minister. I was copied into it, and it was sent on 13 November. The timescale from September to 31 December was a very short period of time to get legislation in place.

I will bring in Jim Wilson, who has been involved in the discussions with the UK Government from the beginning, because the devolved Administrations have been having discussions with it.

I felt confident, to be honest. On 14 November, after the announcement and the letter that I received on 9 November, I thought that we would be able to get the legislation in place. To be honest, I did not feel comfortable about getting it in place at speed for 31 December. Also, compared with England and Wales, we in Scotland, uniquely, have dog control notices. Local authorities have powers to insist that dangerous dogs be muzzled and kept on a lead. Jim Wilson updates me weekly on the figures—currently, 1,200 dogs are subject to dog control notices.

In mid-November, I felt confident from engaging with the stakeholders that we already had those safeguards in Scotland, which were not in place in England and Wales; that they would still be in place come 31 December; and that communities were protected from dangerous dogs.

First, the incident in East Kilbride on Sunday was very distressing, and my thoughts are with the victims of the dog attack. I thank Police Scotland, which attended the incident and ensured that it was swiftly brought under control. That is a live case and members will appreciate that I cannot discuss any details of the specific incident. In line with standard operating practice, the use of a firearm by an officer will be assessed by the Police Investigation and Review Commissioner.

I understand that the breed of dog in that incident is yet to be confirmed, and that they could not determine the breed of dog in the incident in Hamilton, which Russell Findlay also referred to, either.

One of the challenges for the stakeholders, such as DEFRA and the Kennel Club, has been identifying the breed.

I will share some statistics on dog control notices to give a little bit of context. Fife Council, for example, has 188 dogs under dog control notices; Aberdeen City Council has 56. Local authorities are therefore using dog control notices.

I understand Russell Findlay’s point about local authorities, but we have set up an implementation forum. We will be discussing this with local authorities, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Police Scotland to consider any enforcement and operational issues that arise from the legislation. That will help to inform our consideration of any requests for additional funding.

No, I do not agree.

That concern has been raised with me by all stakeholders. The definition that was determined by DEFRA is that the male has to be 20 inches in height and the female has to be 19 inches. Therefore, an XL bully that was 16 or 17 inches would not have to wear a muzzle and lead. That caused quite a lot of confusion down south when the UK Government’s order was implemented, and it advised that anyone who has any doubts should register their dog.

We have also found, through the correspondence that I have received and that Jim Wilson has received, that there is confusion among the general public. We are keen to learn lessons on how we can do things better in our legislation in respect of the issues that have been raised. We have until 31 July. We will put on the Scottish Government website some support and help for people to determine whether they have an XL bully.

I do not know whether Jim Wilson has anything to add.