Hansard

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee about our stage 1 scrutiny of Maurice Golden’s Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill. Given the bill’s focused scope and the 237 responses to Mr Golden’s consultation, the committee agreed to a shortened stage 1 inquiry, without issuing a general call for views. Between March and May, we took evidence from key organisations, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety and, finally, Maurice Golden himself.

The bill proposes a statutory offence of dog theft, which reflects Maurice Golden’s view that the common-law offence of theft does not adequately take into account the emotional significance of dogs as sentient beings. Organisations such as the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Dogs Trust and Scottish SPCA support that view, arguing that current law treats dogs as mere property. Further, Police Scotland agreed that the common law fails to reflect the emotional and welfare impacts on families and pets.

The committee supports the creation of a stand-alone offence that recognises dogs as sentient beings and acknowledges the emotional harm caused by their theft. Although Maurice Golden believes that a statutory offence would act as a deterrent, Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the minister do not believe that it would change how offences are investigated or prosecuted.

The committee also noted the absence of a dedicated awareness-raising budget, which we previously identified as crucial when considering Christine Grahame’s bill. Without such an awareness-raising campaign, the deterrent effect is likely to be limited. We welcome the Scottish Government’s expert advisory group on dog control and welfare, and have recommended that Maurice Golden explores awareness-raising opportunities if the bill progresses.

The committee is content with the three defences outlined in section 1(2) to 1(4). We also considered concerns about dog theft in the context of domestic abuse. Witnesses agreed that prosecutions under existing domestic abuse legislation are sufficient, and the committee concluded that further measures would fall outside the bill’s scope. The penalties proposed in the bill align with those available under common law in the sheriff court but are lower than those that are available in the High Court.

Section 2 proposes that the theft of an assistance dog be treated as an aggravated offence. The committee recognises the serious, life-changing impact that such a theft would have on the owner, and the provision was strongly supported by witnesses, including the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which emphasised that such dogs are highly trained working animals that provide essential mobility support.

However, we noted that there have been no recorded cases of assistance dog theft in Scotland. Courts already consider the impact of crimes during sentencing, so it is unclear whether the provision is proportionate. If the bill progresses, we recommend reviewing the definition of an assistance dog to ensure that it includes all dogs that provide support and assistance, and we are content with the use of the negative procedure for any regulations related to that definition.

Although the theft of a working dog, such as a sheepdog, might not have the same life-changing impacts as the theft of an assistance dog, it can still cause emotional distress and disrupt livelihoods. Therefore, the committee recommends extending the aggravation to include other working dogs.

On victim statements, the committee notes that the court already considers the impact of crimes on victims during sentencing. Including victim statements specifically for dog thefts in summary courts could create inconsistencies, as they are not available for other offences. Given the Scottish Government’s commitment to expanding victim statements more broadly, we recommend removing that provision at stage 2.

Sections 4 and 5 relate to reporting and data collection. Although the minister has stated that the provisions are unnecessary, stakeholders agree that current data on dog theft is inadequate and likely underrepresents the true scale of the issue. However, due to how crimes are currently recorded under the Scottish crime recording standard, a statutory offence alone would not improve data collection, and the committee recommends amending the crime recording standards to improve data accuracy, regardless of whether the bill passes.

In summary, the committee supports the general principles of the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill. We believe that it rightly recognises the emotional and welfare impacts of dog theft and supports the creation of a statutory offence. However, we have made several recommendations to improve the bill’s effectiveness and proportionality, particularly around awareness raising, the definitions of assistance and working dogs, and the removal of the victim statement provision.