Meeting of the Parliament 02 October 2025 [Draft]
It is up to us to persuade the Government. I am sure that, between us and the member in charge of the bill, we might make progress. I just put that down as a marker. I have no problems with that, because I am retiring next year—I am free.
However, like the committee, I do not support the requirement for a victim statement about the effect of the crime on the victim. Such statements are not mandatory in other theft offences, but the court has the flexibility and discretion to permit a victim statement. I like the word “discretion” in relation to court.
I do not support annual reporting. It is the province of parliamentary committees to make space for post-legislative scrutiny. There has been an argument for a long time that we should have a committee that simply does post-legislative scrutiny.
I support the theft of a dog or puppy being recorded by the police as a specific category of offence. Facts give us power.
Again, I congratulate Mr Golden and wish him well as the bill moves—as I am sure it will—to stage 2, where I might well meet him and some others. It appears that there will be a crowded field.
I support the bill’s general principles. I note other comments that have been made. We need a consolidating bill that takes in all the dog welfare legislation that we have made. There is nothing worse for a lawyer—I am a former lawyer—than having to pick our way through separate little bits of legislation. Let us have a consolidation bill in the next session of Parliament.
16:08