Chamber and committees

Yes. If we did not mirror them, the loophole would be reopened.

My understanding is that, under the definition on the website, the male has to be 20 inches and the female has to be 19 inches. I would say that a puppy would not reach that.

I would say that that is a fair summary.

I would say that that is correct. The speed also concerned us, because when the timescale was announced on 31 October, the first stage ran up to 31 December, and owners had until 31 January to register for the exemption. There have been unintended consequences since then. For example, what happens when someone who had an XL bully dog dies? We are dealing with that through the second SSI. The UK Government is now having to deal with that issue, too. Because the legislation was rushed through, we are trying to pick up from where we are now, and we hope to implement the legislation better than it has been implemented in England and Wales.

Yes, they have.

One of the concerns that we had about the initial announcement of the ban down south was that there was a loophole in that regard. We tried to get certainty on that, and we did not get that until 12 or 14 December—I am sorry; I cannot remember the exact date. That was the reason why we had concerns. When I wrote my letter on 14 November, I felt confident at that stage that, on 31 December, because we have a system of dog control notices through local authorities, which have powers to deal with dangerous dogs locally, we would be in the same position as England and Wales. However, we did not envisage that people would bring XL bully dogs up to Scotland during the Christmas period. Community safety has to be paramount in that regard, which is why this decision has been made.

No, they do not—and that is one of the concerns that has been raised during stakeholder engagement. Referring to the 61,000 applications that have been registered and the point that more than 200 owners have decided not to keep their dogs, I do not know, specifically, if they have all been put down. I do not know whether Jim Wilson knows that detail.

I have concerns. The issue of the definition of an XL bully has been raised with me since day 1, which is why we want to be very clear as we move forward, especially on the Scottish Government website. The description has to be done in a way that supports people to identify whether they have an XL bully.

Christine Grahame is correct that the issue has been sensationalised in the past couple of months in newspaper articles and on television. Some supposed XL bully dogs would not be identified as such through the height definition. That has caused confusion with the general public, as well.

Stakeholders raised the issue of rehoming centres—you will know about those—and the possibility of allowing those centres an extension so that they can rehome XL bullies. Unfortunately, however, in the circumstances in which we currently find ourselves, if that loophole was opened, it would—again—allow dogs to be brought up to rehoming centres in Scotland to be distributed throughout the country.

We can look at that with the implementation group, but I would have concerns about it. Jim Wilson might want to come in on that.

I mentioned earlier the unintended consequences of this legislation, such as the issue if someone dies. These things are being considered and, as Jim Wilson outlined, we will consider them. We have the implementation group, and it could be very worthy of consideration to include the group that you mention. I do not know whether Jim wants to give his view on that.