Chamber and committees

A question sprang to mind when I was listening to Russell Findlay. We already have specific legislation on child grooming. It would be helpful to know whether there is duplication there from the Scottish Government’s point of view. Criminal law is normally a matter for this Parliament, unless it is international organised crime. We need to be clear about why we would need offences that would be an aggravation of an existing offence. We need to know whether that gives the Crown the option of how the offence is charged, if you follow me. That may seem simple on the face of it, but devolved competence normally allows Scotland to decide how it wishes to proceed. I am sure that there are very good reasons for that, but we need to ask the question, because we certainly do not want any confusion about this.

Good morning. Is the purpose of the SSIs that we are considering purely to close the loophole?

I was listening to what Jim Wilson was saying and trying to understand the situation. There has already been discussion with the UK Government about XL bully policy—that is what the DEFRA talks were about. I want to establish exactly why you have introduced the instrument now. Is it simply because, when you were having those discussions, you saw a loophole and you want to close it? Is that right?

On XL bully dogs?

You have answered my question about how you define an XL bully. Some organisations wrote to the committee with concerns, one of which is about puppies that have not reached the fully grown size of their breed. Will you consider how that will be dealt with?

Did you say that Scotland was doing its own work as well, separate from that?

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?