Hansard

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I congratulate my friend Maurice Golden on his dedication and commitment to highlighting this important issue, and on the work that he has done personally to advance it and keep it on the agenda. It is positive that the Scottish Government has given its qualified support to the bill and that it will hopefully find its place on the statute book before too long.

I am sure that we can all relate to the emotive issue of dog theft. With the Scottish Government estimating a dog population of between 800,000 and 1 million, it is safe to say that there will be many dog owners in this chamber. I regret to inform members that I am currently not one of them, but I hope that that might change soon.

I am always pleased to support events such as the Dogs Trust show here at Holyrood. Not only is it always a highlight of the parliamentary calendar, but it serves to promote the rehoming of dogs in its care. I am particularly proud to say that not only did my Dogs Trust dog, Buster, medal in that competition, but he was rehomed the very next week.

It is no great struggle to recognise the bond between people and their dogs. For many, they are part of the family. That was certainly the case with all our dogs, and I know the loss that I would have felt had any of them been stolen from us. I see that same bond in my friend’s rescue dog, Billy—or Bilbo Doggins, as he is affectionately known. He swapped the mean streets of Bulgaria for a more comfortable life beside the sea outside Edinburgh. Despite his penchant for eating whatever has died or been washed up—or, indeed, been washed up dead—on their local beach, despite his appalling record on recall and despite his occasional, or perhaps incessant, barking, he is a very much loved part of the family, especially by the children.

That is why dog abduction is such an abhorrent crime, which rightly sickens not only dog owners but wider society. Too often, it is combined with other sorts of criminality; abducted dogs can face horrifying cruelty and neglect. Maurice Golden’s bill proposes a significant change to how dog theft will be prosecuted.

The chief objection to the bill appears to relate to the merit of creating distinct offences to cover conduct that is already criminal. When making that objection, we should keep in mind that overlapping offences are far from uncommon and form an essential and long-standing part of our justice system. We use them to draw distinctions between action and intent, to indicate that a different punishment is intended and to lay down a marker to criminals that the focus of the law is on them.

As has been set out in much of the evidence presented on the bill, dogs are living, sentient beings. What is being done to them when they are stolen is categorically different from what is being done when a £20 note is stolen from somebody’s purse or a watch is stolen from a wrist. The impact on the human is quite different, too. The gap that the dog leaves in someone’s home and the not knowing where they are or how they are being treated should be reflected in how we address those offences.

The relatively new sentencing process guidelines from the Scottish Sentencing Council recognise a range of criteria for judges in choosing appropriate sentences. Harm is the most applicable, but also the most general. The Law Society of Scotland has taken a neutral view on the question, but points to sentimental value being part of the existing assessment of harm. That, too, is insufficient in recognising the true extent of harm in this case. Just as a dog is different from a stolen £20 note or a wristwatch, it is different from an old photograph or a piece of your grandmother’s jewellery. Ultimately, it is for the Parliament, rather than the courts, to answer questions of value and the finer boundaries of criminal law and to reflect the views of society in doing so.

I note the Scottish Government’s position on adding dog theft to the category of offences for which a victim statement could be made by the affected parties to the court under section 3 of the bill. Although I do not take issue with the Minister for Victims and Community Safety’s explanation in her letter of 29 September to the committee convener, it is disappointing that the Scottish Government has not found a clear path to allowing this innovation. I have no doubt that, for offences of this type, victim statements would be a positive step in highlighting and representing the harm that has been caused, ahead of sentencing decisions.

The bill is well deserving of support. In the best traditions of members’ bills, it highlights an overlooked issue that is important to people beyond the walls of the Parliament and proposes action to deal with it. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has recognised that and has offered qualified support, and I hope that members will look to endorse the bill’s general principles.