XL Bully ban evidence and analysis: EIR release

Information requested

1. Could you supply all analysis done by the Scottish Government on how many XL Bullies are now in Scotland following the ban in England and Wales.

2. Humza Yousaf said in an interview on January 5 that "We have a very controlled and quite tight regime when it comes to the management of animals, control of dogs, and that is something that is quite unique in Scotland compared to other parts of the UK." Could you provide evidence to
back this comment up? https://uk.yahoo.com/?err=404&err_url=https%3a%2f%2fuk.news.yahoo.com%2ffirst-minister-says-xl-bully-160351606.html

3. Could you supply all work undertaken on the Scottish Dog control database since 2019? When will it be up and running?

4. Which organisations/people recommended no safeguards/bans on XL Bullies and could you supply this advice?

5. Could you supply all the advice given to the Scottish Government on options for the XL Bully ban?

6. How much has the Scottish Government's research into XL Bullies cost and breakdown of these costs?

7. Could you supply the full list of letters, meetings, minutes of meetings and notes between the UK Government and the Scottish Government between September 15 and the date of this FOI, about the UK's ban on XL Bullies and any timeline about this topic?

8. Could you supply the new evidence which the Scot Gov received between January 5 and January 11 which spurred the decision to create safeguards against XL Bullies?

9. On January 4, Siobhian Brown said: "We have made it clear to the UK government that people in England and Wales should not use any loopholes that could be created to get rid of their dogs north of the border or anywhere else in the UK." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-
67885918 -Could you supply the evidence to back this comment up?

Response

As the information you have requested is ‘environmental information’ for the purposes of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs), we are required to deal with your request under those Regulations. We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of the Freedom of
Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), so that we do not also have to deal with your request under FOISA.

This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption, because there is no public interest in dealing with the same request under two different regimes. This is essentially a technical point and has no material effect on the outcome of your request.

Response to your request

I enclose a copy of some of the information you requested.

Question 1

There is a significant degree of uncertainty across the UK as to the size of the population of XL Bully dogs. It is clear from the number of applications received from XL Bully owners in England and Wales seeking exemption for their dogs that the initial UK Government estimate of 10,000 XL Bully dogs was a significant underestimate.

It is also evident from press and social media coverage that some XL Bully dogs have been transported to Scotland. It is this context of uncertainty and the failure of the UK Government to ensure XL Bully dog owners in England and Wales cannot evade the new safeguards by selling their dogs
outside of England and Wales that has led to the decision by the Scottish Government to introduce similar safeguards in Scotland.

Question 2

Scotland has a civil dog control notice (DCN) regime that does not exist in England and Wales. DCNs are an essential part of helping keep communities safe and requiring responsible dog ownership. This is a proportionate approach where local authorities can use these important powers where needed and focusing on those owners who have allowed their dogs to be out of control. Conditions can be added to a DCN such as muzzling in public or keeping a dog on a lead, with such decisions made by local authority officers (i.e. dog wardens).

There are currently more than 1,200 active DCNs in place in Scotland. XL Bully dogs represent approximately 2% of those DCNs in force.

Question 3

An exception under regulation 10(4)(e) of the EIRs applies to some of the information you have requested. This regulation covers internal communications which can take the form of internal email exchanges, file notes prepared for internal use, notes of meetings and documents which have been circulated internally.

This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception.

We recognise that there is some public interest in release because of the material relates to an important policy area of XL Bully dogs. However, this is outweighed by the public interest in ensuring the Scottish Government, and those who the Scottish Government engages with, have private space within which to discuss important issues relating to the policy area of XL Bully dogs. If this private space did not exist, it is likely to inhibit how engagement takes place with an adverse impact on how policy is developed.

The national DCN database has been operational since February 2022.

The Scottish Dog Control Database Order 2021 came into force on 31 December 2021 and provided for the establishment of the database.

The national database brings together the records of all 32 local authorities into a centralised database, that is accessible by local authorities and Police Scotland.

The Scottish Government commissioned the Improvement Service to take forward work to design and create the database in 2021. The Improvement Service manage the national database with all local authorities able to upload details of served DCNs with Police Scotland granted ‘view only’ access.

Question 4

An exception under regulation 10(4)(e) of the EIRs applies to some of the information you have requested. This regulation covers internal communications which can take the form of internal email exchanges, file notes prepared for internal use, notes of meetings and documents which have been circulated internally.

This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception.

We recognise that there is some public interest in release because of the material relates to an important policy area of XL Bully dogs. However, this is outweighed by the public interest in ensuring the Scottish Government, and those who the Scottish Government engages with, have private space within which to discuss important issues relating to the policy area of XL Bully dogs. If this private space did not exist, it is likely to inhibit how engagement takes place with an adverse impact on how policy is developed.

An exception under regulation 11(1) of the EIRs also applies to some of the information you have requested. Regulation 11(1) provides that where the environmental information requested includes personal data about an individual other than the applicant (third party personal data), the data does not have to be made available if disclosure would breach any of the data protection principles contained in Article 5(1) of the UK GDPR. As this is an absolute exemption, the public interest test does not apply.

An exception under regulation 10(5)(f) of the EIRs (substantial prejudice to interests of person who provided the information) also applies to the information you have requested. This exception applies because disclosure of this particular information would, or would be likely to, prejudice substantially the interests of the organisation(s) or individual(s) who provided that information to the Scottish Government. They:

• were not under any legal obligation to give us that information;
• did not supply it in circumstances in which it could, apart from the EIRs, be made available; and
• have not consented to disclosure.

This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. We recognise that there is a public interest in disclosing information as part of open and transparent government. However, there is a greater public interest in protecting the interests of anyone who provides the Scottish Government with information on a confidential basis. Disclosing such information against the express wishes of the stakeholder is likely to undermine their trust in the Government and make them reluctant in future to share information with us on issues such as dangerous dogs legislation/ breed specific legislation This would significantly impair the Scottish Government’s ability to develop policies and make decisions on the basis of fully informed advice and evidence. This would not be in the public interest.

However, I can advise that the Scottish Government has engaged over a period of months with key dog control interests in Scotland to understand their views on the potential for the introduction of new safeguards in Scotland on XL Bully dogs.

A range of views have been offered through this engagement with many views offered indicating caution about introducing in Scotland the controls introduced in England and Wales. This caution related to the policy merits of the new safeguards. It is, however, a decision made in light of the undue impact on Scotland of the new controls in England and Wales.

Question 5

An exception under regulation 10(4)(e) of the EIRs applies to some of the information you have requested. This regulation covers internal communications which can take the form of internal email exchanges, file notes prepared for internal use, notes of meetings and documents which have been circulated internally.

This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception.

We recognise that there is some public interest in release because of the material relates to an important policy area of XL Bully dogs. However, this is outweighed by the public interest in ensuring the Scottish Government, and those who the Scottish Government engages with, have private space within which to discuss important issues relating to the policy area of XL Bully dogs. If this private space did not exist, it is likely to inhibit how engagement takes place with an adverse impact on how policy is developed.

A copy of all relevant documents are attached as an Annex.

Question 6

The Scottish Government has incurred staff costs in assessing policy on XL Bully dogs. This staff cannot be quantified as the staff members involved also had other duties. No specific cost has arisen from research that has been commissioned by the Scottish Government.

Question 7

An exception under regulation 10(4)(e) of the EIRs applies to some of the information you have requested. This regulation covers internal communications which can take the form of internal email exchanges, file notes prepared for internal use, notes of meetings and documents which have been circulated internally.

This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception.

We recognise that there is some public interest in release because of the material relates to an important policy area of XL Bully dogs. However, this is outweighed by the public interest in ensuring the Scottish Government, and those who the Scottish Government engages with, have private space within which to discuss important issues relating to the policy area of XL Bully dogs. If this private space did not exist, it is likely to inhibit how engagement takes place with an adverse impact on how policy is developed.

The letter the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, Siobhian Brown MSP, sent to The Rt Hon Lord Benyon, Minister for Biosecurity, Marine and Rural Affairs on 14 November 2023 is attached as an Annex.

Question 8

I would refer you to the statement the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, Siobhian Brown MSP gave to the Scottish Parliament on 18 January 2024 which sets out the reasons for the Scottish Government’s policy decision to introduce new safeguards in reaction to XL Bully
dogs: https://www.gov.scot/publications/new-safeguards-relation-xl-bully-dogs-community-safety-minister-statement/.

As noted in the statement, the action being taken by the Scottish Government is a direct response to the new controls in England and Wales on XL Bully dogs and the impact this has created in Scotland.

Question 9

See response to question 7.

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at http://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.

EIR 202400394658 - Information released - Attachments

File type

16 page PDF

File size

671.4 kB