Meeting of the Parliament 16 December 2025 [Draft]
I am delighted to speak in this debate in support of my colleague Maurice Golden’s bill, and not only because I was the additional member in charge of the bill—that is a smart title but, to be honest, I was not actually required to do anything. I know how much determination is needed to introduce a member’s bill, having successfully introduced two of my own.
During the early stages of the bill, the Law Society of Scotland stated:
“Theft is already an offence under the common law, defined as ‘to appropriate moveable, corporeal things belonging to another person, without the consent of that person, where the accused knows that those things belongs to another and intends to deprive the owner of their use permanently, indefinitely or (in certain circumstances) temporarily’. This offence can be used to prosecute dog theft incidents.”
For balance, I will also quote the Law Society’s comments that
“Judges in Scotland have the tools to assess and sanction appropriately dog theft offences, considering the harm that such behaviours may cause to the animal’s welfare and the dog’s owners and family.”
I recall from my days in practice as a solicitor that, when a relationship broke down, although issues with the monetary assets could be resolved, there was often a fight about the family dog, and there were even circumstances in which the family dog was used in a coercive manner.
The rub is the concept of a dog as a “corporeal thing”. It may break our hearts to have a valuable or sentimental piece of property stolen but, in my book, that by no means equates to having a family dog stolen. We have moved a long way from viewing animals—including pets—as property.
There is also specific reference in the bill to “assistance dogs” and “helper” dogs. The heartbreak may be the same or be of a more professional nature if those dogs are stolen, so that classification is important. I welcome the penalties and the aggravation that would be introduced if it is a helper dog, which helps children and adults in their daily lives, that is stolen. Helper dogs can also be used to detect drug smuggling and explosives, and can possibly alert individuals to the presence of cancer. Therefore, an aggravation of the crime in those circumstances—and that is by no means an exhaustive list—would be very welcome.
I appreciate that the possibility of recording dog theft as a specific crime may offer challenges, but those are not insurmountable—I will leave it at that.
I will conclude my speech with a few words about my very late dog of 40 years ago, Roostie—my delightful, kindly Irish setter. She let the cat sleep on top of her—for her body warmth, not his. My sons, who are now fathers themselves, used her as a pillow for comfort as well as for fun. She dragged us out for walks in the pouring rain and we felt the better for it. She was never—ever—property or a “corporeal thing.” Her impact on my life can be measured by the fact that, 40 years on, she is keen in my memories. She taught my sons how to behave and respect her, just as she taught me how to be a good and responsible owner. The reciprocated love and affection of a dog is invaluable.
I will briefly parachute in another point: the festive season is not the time to buy a dog or a puppy, and, when people buy a dog or a puppy, they should do so only from a reputable source.
Going back to my script, I also agree that it would be a good idea in the next parliamentary session to introduce a consolidation bill on all laws that relate to dogs.
On that note, again, I congratulate Maurice Golden. As a postscript, I say that I know that the member is not seeking re-election. He will be a great loss to this place.