Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) 16 March 2022
I congratulate Maurice Golden on securing the debate and bringing this important matter to the chamber. I share his concern about the rapid increase in dog theft, which has been caused by the high demand for dogs during the pandemic and the increase in their value. According to the Kennel Club, the crime impacts and upsets nearly 200 affected households across the UK each month.
Last month, in Kilbirnie, where I live, two Scottish terriers vanished from their owner’s back garden and were believed to have been snatched. Thankfully, after having been missing for several days, Archie and Angus were found and returned to their owner.
Such an event shows why there is an increasing fear of dog theft, and many owners now feel the need to constantly keep an eye on their dogs and never leave them unsupervised. That is unsurprising, given that the emotional impact that owners of stolen dogs experience can be profound, with many victims reporting depression, diminished social lives and even, on occasion, marriage breakdown as a result.
More than a decade ago, I was contacted by a distraught constituent living in Whiting Bay, in Arran, after his dog had gone missing. He alerted the police and feared that his collie, Timmy, might never be returned. Astonishingly, the dog was located in Staffordshire, having been lifted by an Israeli tourist who was—ostensibly—looking for some canine company while touring Britain. How was Timmy found? It was through the microchip, which allowed him to be traced back to his island owner, who was absolutely delighted.
That important precautionary measure, which is now a legal requirement, is one that dog owners can take to increase the probability of their being reunited with their dog if the worst should happen. It gives dog owners peace of mind and ensures that, if anyone tries to re-register their dog’s chip number, they will be informed soon afterwards. However, as Maurice Golden pointed out, the system is not perfect.
A decade ago, inspired by Timmy’s recovery, I organised in Kilbirnie the first free microchipping session in Scotland, at which 167 dogs were microchipped, and I followed that up with similar sessions across Cunninghame North. Soon after, microchipping spread throughout much of Scotland, and I cannot thank the Dogs Trust enough, as it not only paid for the microchips but funded the staff to install them. Over many years, the Dogs Trust campaigned remorselessly and successfully to introduce compulsory microchipping.
I completely agree with Colin Smyth that we should also consider microchipping cats. My wife, who is a Westminster MP and chairs the all-party parliamentary group on cats, is pursuing that.
Unfortunately, six years after dog microchipping became a legal requirement in Scotland and across Britain, many dog owners still have not chipped their dogs. An English local authority recently said that only 26 per cent of dogs that were taken in by council dog wardens last year were microchipped with accurate details. The fact that chipping services had to be paused by the SPCA during the pandemic may have further hindered progress. Given the rise in dog theft, and the profound impact that that crime has on owners and pets, I welcome Maurice Golden’s motion and the proposal for a bill to create a specific offence of dog theft.
I note the recent comment made by Roddy Dunlop QC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, which has already been raised here. He stated that there is already a significant deterrent in place in the common law of Scotland and that any court would take into account the dog’s value to the owner when sentencing. That is certainly reassuring, but only up to a point. We have heard how few cases are actually prosecuted.
First, a separate statutory offence would address the current gap in the available data that is required to prevent dog theft and would help to ascertain the true scale of the problem. Secondly, it could act as a deterrent by setting a more realistic maximum sentence that the courts might actually use, rather than the current theoretical maximum sentence for theft of any kind in Scotland, which is life. Thirdly, for philosophical reasons, a statutory offence would differentiate between the theft of an object and that of a living animal. It is interesting that members keep referring to mobile phones as if those are their most important possessions. Such an offence would establish a clear difference in the law between objects and sentient animals, which would recognise the welfare impact on the dog, rather than treat the theft as a commodity loss for the dog owner.
I am alarmed by the recent increase in instances of dog theft across Scotland and I therefore welcome the fact that a formal consultation on Mr Golden’s proposed bill to introduce a specific statutory crime of dog theft will begin next month. I hope that the introduction of a specific offence will not only recognise the emotional impact and trauma that stealing a dog creates for owners and pets but act as a strong deterrent to potential offenders, while establishing a separate database for dog theft to track the number of offences that are being committed.