Meeting of the Parliament 02 October 2025 [Draft]
I thank all members for their speeches. It has been a good debate. I welcome the level of engagement on the issue, and with the bill, from members across the chamber. I also welcome the positive tone of the debate and the fact that many members have indicated their support for the general principles of the bill.
I recognise that members, including the committee convener and the minister, have highlighted particular areas where they consider that the bill should be amended. As I indicated in my opening speech, there are areas that I am happy to look at and where I will lodge amendments, for example to remove the requirement for a victim statement. I have also agreed to work with the minister to look at the particular definition of assistance dogs and at the provisions for annual reporting and reviews. Furthermore, I commit to on-going discussions to ensure that the bill is in the best possible position to become an act.
I look forward to doing that in advance of stage 2 proceedings. I will draw together a set of amendments that the entire committee, ideally, will be able to agree on. In addition to working with the Scottish Government, including with the minister, with whom I have worked very productively, I am very willing to meet other members who might have ideas for amendments.
I will cover some of the ideas that have been raised in the excellent speeches that were made during the debate. I am pleased that members are taking the bill so seriously and are coming up with constructive suggestions to improve it.
The minister, who is a dog lover, recognises the seriousness of the crime and highlighted concerns around victim statements and annual reporting. I am pleased that we have agreed a path forward on those points, which is now on the record, in the Official Report.
The lead committee and its convener, Finlay Carson, mentioned two issues that I will highlight. The first is on awareness raising. I agree with his point, but I would suggest that the issue be covered in something that is linked to the bill rather than codified in primary legislation. Secondly, I also agree with the substantive point about publicising the bill, if it becomes law. I am sure that lots of members in the new session of Parliament will be willing to pose with their prized pooches for that purpose.
I hear and have looked at the argument about working dogs, but I am not convinced that there is a clear case for extending the bill to cover them. The existing aggravation in the bill is there to ensure that people who are unable to carry out day-to-day tasks—including reporting a crime, potentially—without the support of an assistance dog should receive additional protection in law.