³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

We are supposed to be discussing the order in front of us.

Does that highlight a fundamental lack of respect for the role of the Scottish Government and the legislative responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament?

I find it very strange that the proposal was announced on 15 September and the first formal written notification to the Scottish Government advising of a ban was on 29 September. That was 14 days after the proposal appeared on the BBC News website. Is that an indication of respectful behaviour by the United Kingdom Government?

I will pursue you further on that, Mr Wilson. I assume that, in advance of the announcement on 15 September, you regularly and assiduously considered the type of activity that you have just placed on the record, and that officials in the Scottish Government and ministers explored the ideal regime for dog control in Scotland and considered it in dialogue with DEFRA officials.

My final question is on the Scottish Government’s current position and, in essence, the lack of clarity that arises out of the legislation that has been enacted in England and Wales, which creates a problem in Scotland. Is that a fair representation of the challenge that the Scottish Government faces, given the fact that Mr Wilson has just placed on the record that there has been regular work to ensure that the dog control regime in Scotland is as appropriate and robust as it can be, subject, of course, to further legislative change? Has the necessity of the order coming to the Scottish Government been precipitated by the lack of clarity that the legislation that has been implemented in England and Wales has created?

I am grateful to the minister for indicating another example of a lack of respect from the United Kingdom Government and a lack of obligation to pursue the intergovernmental arrangements that the Scottish Parliament has been assured are in operation, but which clearly have not in any shape or form been respected on this issue. Is that a fair summary?

I can clearly understand from Mr Wilson’s contribution that there has been detailed Scottish Government official engagement on many of the questions relating to dog control. After that public announcement and inappropriate intergovernmental communication from the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Government sought to understand the implications of the legislation for Scotland and determine whether there would be loopholes or whether the existing dog control legislation in Scotland would suffice. Is that a fair summary of what went on between 15 September and 14 December, when I think there was the formal response to the Scottish Government, which gave information that might have allowed it to form an informed view on whether there were loopholes?

Have further implementation issues arisen in England and Wales as a consequence of the way that the UK Government has handled the matter?

As ever, Christine Grahame has made a formidably strong contribution to the debate. I share her aspirations and her anxiety to be assured about public safety. I associate myself entirely with the concerns that she expressed about the impact on individuals as a consequence of attacks, when those take place. I am therefore at one with Christine Grahame and, I think, all members of the committee about the public safety concerns and the importance of acting in that respect.

The minister and Mr Wilson have demonstrated entirely clearly and convincingly to the committee that the Scottish Government is undertaking regular and assiduous work on dog control to ensure that, in Scotland, we have in place the appropriate measures through the dog control notice regime and the legislation that Christine Grahame pioneered through this Parliament. Therefore, the public in Scotland should take from this evidence session a great deal of clarity and assurance about the attention to detail that the Government, its ministers and officials pay to the way that dog control issues are managed.

Unfortunately, the Scottish Government has been put in an entirely impossible situation by the actions of the United Kingdom Government, which embarked, with absolutely no consultation, on an approach that has directly created a loophole that has implications for public safety in Scotland. That is the source of the loophole, the problem and the threat to public safety. If that issue is not addressed by the committee today—this is where, unfortunately, I part company with my dear friend and colleague Christine Grahame—we are in danger of increasing the risk to public safety. The Government’s case has been made convincingly in that respect.

Unless the loophole that has been created by the actions of the United Kingdom Government is closed, there is a risk of dogs being transferred to Scotland without proper support, training, assistance or engagement with their owners in an abrupt and distressing fashion. I can only imagine that that runs the risk of increasing the risks to public safety.

Instead of thinking more carefully about the legislation, the United Kingdom Government sent letters to Scottish ministers that created a lack of clarity and, on the basis of some news reports that I now read, highlighted the loophole that it has proudly created. If, instead of writing those absurd and provocative letters, UK Government ministers had ensured that the loophole was not created in the first place in the English legislation, the committee would not be considering the issue today. The arguments that Christine Grahame put forward would then have had more strength around them—although they are very strong arguments. The source of the loophole is the cavalier behaviour of the United Kingdom Government.

Some people might think that that is about constitutional questions but, for me, that gets to the nub of the UK Government’s reckless behaviour, which this Parliament is now on the receiving end of. It is an example of shocking disrespect for the powers of this Parliament and a shocking disregard for intergovernmental working. When I again get a lecture in this Parliament from one of my opponents about the fact that there is something wrong with the Scottish Government’s engagement with the UK Government, I will cite this case, because it is an example of shocking disrespect for the process of decision making in the United Kingdom and shocking disregard for the intergovernmental frameworks that are supposed to be our protection. For anybody who thinks that all is well with the way that this Parliament relates to the other Parliaments and Governments of the United Kingdom, this is a wake-up call, because it is an example of the actions of a UK Government that creates mayhem by its actions and does not care about the consequences for the devolved settlement.

Therefore, I am afraid that, reluctantly, I will not be in a position to support Christine Grahame’s motion. The Government has been put in an entirely impossible position, and the order that is in front of the committee is an inevitable consequence of that.

Will you confirm that the first that the Scottish Government knew of a United Kingdom Government proposal for an XL bully dog ban was via the BBC News website on 15 September? Is that correct?