Hansard

I thank Maurice Golden for his constructive engagement on the bill and the non-Government bills unit for all its continuing work on it. I also thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for its stage 1 report and its recommendations, the vast majority of which I agree with.

As a dog lover and a dog owner myself, I recognise and understand the emotional impact that dogs have on our lives. Our dogs are members of our family and to lose a much-loved pet to theft is a harrowing experience. We are all aware that dog theft is an emotive issue that can have serious consequences for dogs and their owners. The Scottish Government is well aware of the impact on any owner who has had their dog stolen and, of course, we are also concerned about the wellbeing and welfare of the dogs that have been stolen. I am therefore pleased to say that the Scottish Government is able to support the key component of the bill, which is to make dog theft a statutory offence, as I confirmed to Mr Golden and to the committee earlier this week.

However, like the committee, I cannot agree with all the proposals in the bill. Therefore, the Scottish Government’s support for the general principles of the bill is conditional on Mr Golden making changes to the bill at stage 2, to reflect concerns that have also been raised by the committee in its stage 1 report. If those changes are made, the Scottish Government will be content to support the bill at stage 3; given that the changes are also recommended in the committee’s report, I am sure that Mr Golden will be responding to them anyway. I am pleased to confirm that the Scottish Government will be willing to provide support to help with amendments.

The bill also provides that the offence of dog theft will be aggravated if the dog that is taken is an assistance dog, regardless of whether the dog is working when it is stolen. The aggravation makes the charge more serious and ensures that the court is required to consider whether to make the sentence more severe. The report states:

“The Committee recognises that the theft of an assistance dog would have a serious, life-changing, impact on its owner, both in terms of the emotional distress it would bring and the impact on their independence and ability to perform everyday tasks.”

The Scottish Government supports the aggravation and will engage with Mr Golden on how best to ensure that all dogs that provide support and assistance are recognised in the aggravation, reflecting an ask that was made in the committee’s stage 1 report.

The bill provides for victim impact statements to be available for all dog-theft cases. We do not support that provision, and neither did the committee. Members will be aware that only two weeks ago we dealt with the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, and we extended the use of victim impact statements to all solemn cases. We remain of the view that that is appropriate but that it should not be expanded to summary cases at this point. Therefore, our support for the bill is predicated on that aspect of the bill being removed.

I turn to the provision in the bill that would require Scottish ministers to prepare and publish annual reports on the operation of the act, covering extensive detail, including information that is unavailable or difficult to obtain, which makes it operationally impossible. More important, producing an annual report would present significant resourcing challenges that would be disproportionate to what such a report would provide. Although I am against the provision as it stands, I have offered Mr Golden support on developing a deliverable and appropriate reporting requirement, rather than a recurring annual statutory requirement.

There is also a provision requiring the Scottish Government to review the act. Committees of this Parliament are free to consider any post-legislative scrutiny. For a member’s bill, I consider it appropriate for Parliament to decide on a review, not Government. Therefore, I do not support that provision.

I congratulate Mr Golden on his bill. I know that dog theft is a topic close to his heart, and I know that members across the chamber recognise, just as wider society does, the importance of dogs in our families. As we know, there is fierce competition among MSPs to win the Kennel Club’s dog of the year competition every year. The bill recognises that it is not the monetary value of a stolen pet that matters to an owner, nor the breed or pedigree, but the loss of a family member to theft. By recognising the statutory offence that the bill will introduce, we all accept, as the committee does, that dogs are sentient beings, that their theft has an emotional impact on their owner and that there is also an impact on the welfare of the dog.

I look forward to continuing to work with Mr Golden to ensure that the necessary changes are made to the bill so that the Scottish Government’s support for its general principles can lead to continued support at stage 3.