Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is a lot of material in our papers that we will not be able to cover. For example, some people who are concerned about the legislation referred to the 72 per cent of fatal attacks that have taken place in the home. There are concerns about what the changes will mean for people who already have these dogs, such as their requirements for exercise.

I have very little knowledge of what an XL bully dog is—only the information that I have gathered since this became an issue. Have there been discussions about why people are breeding such dogs? Should we be tackling the breeders? To some extent, I can understand owners’ concerns about the lack of evidence or history. An owner’s dog might not be an XL bully dog—it could be borderline—but a large dog that is not aggressive. Has tackling breeders been part of the discussion?

Finally, if, for example, someone reports to the police that their next-door neighbour has an XL bully dog that does not comply with the new regulations, does that mean that the police will have powers to examine the dog? Is that the process? I just want to understand what happens.

Given our earlier discussion about the definition, if someone reports that a particular dog could be an XL bully, the police have the power to examine it. However, for the purposes of the SSI, they will have to examine it against the definition that is contained in the guidance, including the measurements that the minister mentioned, and make a determination as to whether they think that it is an XL bully dog. If they think that it is, they will have to take steps because the owner has not complied. Does that sound right?

I thank Christine Grahame. Please never stop giving your impassioned speeches about the importance of passing good-quality legislation. I really value your contribution, because you have given me food for thought.

As someone who has proudly supported the devolution settlement, which I fought for, I believe in it. However, there have been long periods of failure in intergovernmental activity. I am concerned that the Scottish Government was not formally notified of the UK Government’s proposed approach. That is wrong, and it goes against the grain of what I believe in, as someone who supports the devolution settlement. That gives me cause for concern.

On the definition issue, I share Katy Clark’s concerns. Given that we do not have a definition enshrined in the legislation and that we lack parameters with regard to what an XL bully dog is, I worry that we will have to return to that question.

As I have said openly, I have limited understanding of the issue, which I have paid attention to and tried to understand only since it appeared in the news. It seems that there are problems with the breed in general, which is why I asked why we are not talking about why breeders are breeding such large dogs that probably need more exercise and need to be under more control than most other dogs. As others have mentioned, we have had some horrific examples of what XL bully dogs have done, although it is not the only breed in relation to which there has been an issue with control and danger to life.

What concerns me when I look at all the various aspects of the issue is the fact that we have a loophole. As the minister said at the beginning, the framework of the English legislation has banned such dogs being taken out of England and Wales. It is an offence to bring such a dog to Scotland, but that can be enforced only if there is parallel legislation. That was my understanding from the beginning, which is why I commented on the situation.

We must make a decision today, so we do not have long to think about the matter. The thing about SSIs is that, even when they are controversial, we have limited time to deal with them. Although the committee is concerned about the justice issues, there are also animal welfare issues and issues to do with the impact on vets. Those are not for this committee, but as an animal lover who has a large dog—I have a German shepherd—I am interested in and concerned about them, and I hope that ministers will continue to have the relevant conversations with the relevant committee about the animal welfare issues.

For those reasons, given that we have to make a decision and I do not want to abstain, I will vote against the motion to annul.

Well, it is my understanding.

I am sorry to challenge you on that, but there would be a diminution. Cases that go to the High Court attract rights of audience for advocates and solicitor advocates. However, the SPICe briefing is clear that, because the sexual offences court would not be the High Court, it would be possible for solicitors, who currently cannot represent accused in certain categories of case, to represent them in those cases. I do not understand why you would have legislated in that way.

I am sorry, but I think that Andrew Baird just said that, for reasons of workload, you have allowed for solicitors to represent cases where previously there would have been counsel. Have I understood that?

When you decide when to run the pilot and for how long, will you be absolutely certain that cases in which an accused person is convicted in a single-judge trial under a pilot—which I do not think is a great word; witnesses have mentioned that these are real cases, so it is not really a pilot, per se—will not be appealed on some human rights grounds? For example, if a pilot were to run for a year, other people would be tried for the same crimes with a jury either side of that year.

I have a supplementary question. Given what you said about there being a lot of change and the fact that you want to compare and assess, would not it make sense to run the pilot in the High Court, because you already know how it operates? Rather than running the pilot in the specialist court that you would have just set up—and which you need to get right—would not it make sense for the pilot to be run in the High Court, so that you do not have to worry about the vagaries of a new system?

Right, but you will look at conviction rates. That will be a criterion. The witnesses are correct, then.