Seòmar agus comataidhean

I just wanted to understand the timetable.

Minister, you have confirmed that closing the loophole is the purpose of the instruments.

I want to ask you about that.

Are you concerned about the definition of an XL bully dog? You said that, in the two incidents that we know about, the breed of the dogs cannot be confirmed. In addition, under the provisions, who makes the final decision on whether a dog is an XL bully dog?

The purpose of the SSI is to set out the conditions for keeping an XL bully dog. You have mentioned the exemptions, but we will not see the instrument for those until much later in the year. I was a wee bit concerned about the separation of that from the SSI that we are considering today, in that we cannot see yet what the exemptions are. Could you explain the reason for the separation?

Would we not be in the same position? Would you not expect to see a definition if it is so important to decide which dogs are covered by, or referred to in, the SSI and which are not? Do you see what I mean?

The working group that Jim Wilson was talking about was to discuss the policy of how to tackle XL bully dogs. Is that right? Have I understood that correctly?

I am just trying to understand the situation. Was Scotland feeding in to the DEFRA expert group on what you already knew was the planned changes to legislation in England in relation to XL bully dogs?

I am just trying to get my head round this. Is it the case that you knew from that expert working group that England was planning to ban XL bully dogs?

I understand the pressure that you must be under, but you can perhaps understand my concern. What would be the basis of the exemptions? I do not think that we can separate out today’s SSI and the exemptions. What are the exemptions?

Interestingly, the 1991 act is cited as an example in public law of poorly drafted and rushed legislation—I remember that from studying at the University of Strathclyde. I agree with Fulton MacGregor that we are all concerned about public safety, so we need to get it right this time.

Minister, I did not think that you answered Katy Clark’s question about what would happen if there was a legal challenge as to whether or not a dog was an XL bully dog. Could a lawyer run circles around that notion, on the basis that the definition is in guidance and not in the law? I have just seen the SSI—it is very sparse, and we have not seen the primary legislation. Can the courts rely on the website where the guidance is held as a solid foundation for defining what an XL bully dog is?

That I fully understand—it makes complete sense—but people in England could be in the same position if there are arguments over the definition. If the guidance is not seen as being legal—because it is just guidance—surely it can be challenged.