Seòmar agus comataidhean

Does the bill address that issue?

I find that quite hard to believe. I do not know whether that could be dealt with through a provision in the bill. I am not sure whether the committee is sighted on the police procedures or can be sighted on them. It seems to be a bit bizarre that you can go for nine months without knowing why you are on restricted duties.

I think that the minister has answered my questions in her opening statement, as they were about how people will be granted an exemption certificate. Originally, I had intended to ask the following questions. Will the Scottish Government publish exemption information soon to maximise the amount of time that dog owners will have to apply for an exemption and consider their next steps? Under what circumstances will the Scottish Government grant a certificate of exemption? What information is required? In your opening statement, you said that anyone who wants to keep their XL bully dog will be able to do so. Is that simply a formality, or will there be people who will not be allowed to keep an XL bully dog? Is it the dog or the person who is being exempted?

You mentioned responsible dog owners. Are there any circumstances that you can think of in which someone would not be given an exemption?

Do we know how much the insurance will cost for the dog owners concerned?

The financial memorandum does not come with any money in it. Who is going to administer the scheme? If there are any issues, will the police investigate or are we going to invest more money in dog wardens?

I have one final point that is more of a concern than a question. I go back to the exemption certificate, which I have a concern about. I take the point that it is a “deed, not breed” approach. We are talking about whether we have responsible dog owners. I asked whether there are any circumstances in which someone would not get an exemption. I have a concern about safety: if someone has a criminal record or we do not think that they are capable of looking after a dog, especially that type of dog, why would we grant them an exemption certificate that would allow them to keep that dog?

The exemption certificate seems to be a formality. Dog wardens, police or neighbours may think that a person should not have a dog, as there may be concerns about how that person controls a dog. It seems to me that the current legislation would allow those people to have an exemption certificate and keep their dog.

You mentioned that you had received letters. In a letter, Michael Gove MP warned that Scotland could become a “dumping ground” for XL bullies and raised concerns that it had not yet been possible to secure equivalent protections in Scotland. What engagement did you have with the UK Government? How many meetings and phone calls did you have?

I will go back to a couple of things that you have just said. You mentioned the announcement on 15 September and said that there had been no communication with the Scottish Government. I am under the impression that, on 15 September, when the UK Government made the announcement, UK officials were also in contact with Scottish Government officials.

You also mentioned that 21 September was the first meeting of the working group. Again, I am under the impression that Scottish Government officials were part of that working group and that they helped to come up with the definition and conformation of the dog breed. You said that you have had no communication, but I am under the impression that Scottish Government officials were involved from the day of the announcement and that every letter that you received asked for meetings with the Scottish Government and for you to be involved, because the UK Government wanted it to be a joint approach, so that there would be none of the loopholes that you are talking about.

I am also under the impression that the loopholes have been created because there has been no engagement on the matter with the UK Government from the Scottish Government. It is the lack of legislation in Scotland that has created the loophole. That happened because we did not put the legislation in at the same time.

You may have engaged with stakeholders, but you have chosen not to engage at all with ministers in Westminster.

I am wondering about the loophole, as it was highlighted that it could have been an issue. If you had engaged with UK ministers, would you have expected the UK Government to legislate for crimes that might be committed in Scotland? I would have thought that that would come under our remit. At the moment it seems that, if somebody rehomes a dog, abandons a dog or does not register a dog, that is an offence in England and Wales. I think the UK Government said that, if somebody then came to Scotland with their dog, those would not be offences in Scotland, so it could not legislate for that. Would you have expected the UK Government to legislate for something in Scotland? Is that not why the UK Government was trying to engage with you, so that you could put something in place here?