Meeting of the Parliament 02 October 2025 [Draft]
I acknowledge the work that Maurice Golden has put into the bill. Dog theft causes heartbreak for owners. Not only that, but it can be expensive to buy a dog—more so if the breed is fashionable, which makes the trade in dogs lucrative. Some might take a dog in the hope that a reward will be offered for its return or, more overtly, they might hold it for ransom. That causes real distress for owners and families. Pets are part of a household and their loss can be heartbreaking.
The Parliament has considered several bills about dogs and their welfare, and all have been lodged by members, which shows the level of our constituents’ concern about the welfare of dogs. A comprehensive Government bill that looks at all aspects of dog ownership and related crime is required, and it should cover other family pets such as cats, which can also be bred in atrocious conditions to meet demand. Pets are often illegally imported, leading to animals becoming unwell and requiring treatment. Again, that is a welfare concern. The trade in pets is so lucrative that it often attracts organised crime, so it needs to be taken seriously.
Members’ bills are, by their very nature, restrictive, and can deal only with single issues; hence, we are getting a patchwork approach to dog welfare. Although I commend those who have lodged bills, I think that we need a better approach to the issues that they seek to tackle. I know that the Scottish Government is setting up an advisory group on dog control and dog welfare, and I hope that that means that there will be better and more comprehensive legislation in the future and that the group does not become a talking shop.
Something that needs further scrutiny and clarity is one of the defences under the bill, because it does not cover dog theft within a relationship that has broken down. That is understandable, because, like any joint property in a relationship, ownership needs to be negotiated. However, concerns were expressed about a pet dog being used to further perpetrate domestic abuse. The theft of a dog by an abusive partner can cause distress, which can also be used to exercise control over the victim. Although we all agree that the bill cannot—and should not—deal with domestic abuse, it would be helpful if the minister could confirm that nothing in the bill would interfere with existing domestic abuse law and that coercive control is already covered in existing legislation.
The bill introduces the aggravation of the theft of an assistance dog. That is extremely rare, but it is right that the bill recognises the impact of such a crime. However, the Government, in its response, refuses to consider other situations where such an aggravation might also be useful. That is unfortunate, because dogs are used to provide assistance in other ways. For example, the police use dogs, as do search and rescue services.?Additionally, sheepdogs can be very expensive to buy and train and are essential to farmers and crofters and the welfare of their animals. Decisions on adding aggravations need further consideration, and we welcome the ability to add them under the bill.
This bill is limited, as are all members’ bills, but we believe that, accompanied by awareness-raising work, it can shine a light on the heartbreak caused by the theft of a dog.? It will also give the police another tool in their armoury to deal with organised crime. Therefore, we will support the bill at stage 1.
16:00