Meeting of the Parliament 02 October 2025 [Draft]
Well, I have just said that we also need to listen to our constituents and what they are telling us. We can deal with that matter at stage 2, perhaps.
The point that I am trying to make is that dogs are not kept property; they are sentient beings. They know when their routines are disrupted, when their lives are turned upside down and when they are no longer with the people who love and care for them, but I am open to persuasion that that might be applied to other animals, too.
I hope that the bill will also give consideration to something that I have raised in Parliament before, and that is the stress, anxiety, injury and cost when there is an attack on one dog by another, as is raised in petition PE1892 by my constituent Evelyn Baginski.
It is already an aggravating factor if any dog theft is part of organised crime, so I can also see the case that has been made in this bill by Maurice Golden for making it an aggravated offence if an assistance dog is deliberately targeted.
I also believe that a victim impact statement would undoubtedly assist those in our justice system charged with determining how to respond proportionately to the real effect—not least emotionally, physically and mentally—of dog abduction or theft.
But I do remain to be convinced about some of the lengthy custodial sentences that are floated as options in this bill. A change in the law will require to be resourced if it is to be enforceable. We will need good data—so, proper reporting and recording as well—and we will need to keep the bill’s effectiveness under review, but these, in my opinion, should all be a routine part of what this Parliament does with all the legislation that it passes.
The loss of a dog under any circumstances is unconscionable and unbearable. The loss of a dog through a deliberate act of theft is unconscionable and unacceptable, and we should simply not tolerate it. That is why today I will be voting in favour of this bill at stage 1.
16:22